2. 2
CORSS-CULTURAL VARIATION IN CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
Course
Consumer Behaviour
Course Instructor
Dr. Selim Reza
M-402
Group members
Sumaiya Afreen (ID# B1001014)
Nazifa Nushrat (ID# B1001038)
Anika Tasnim Shawki (ID#B1001048)
Zaharatul Munir Sarah (ID#B1001049)
Submission date
3rd April, 2013
Bangladesh University of Professionals (BUP)
Mirpur Cantonment, Dhaka-1216
Acknowledgement
3. 3
At first, we would like to express our gratitude to the Almighty for enabling us the
strength and opportunity to complete the report in the schedule time successfully.
We would like to thank and take the opportunity to express our sincere gratitude and
respect to our honourable course instructor Dr. Selim Reza, for setting such an interesting
term paper as our task for course. This paper has been an interesting assignment, one
from which we have learned much and which helped us enrich our knowledge regarding
cross-cultural variation in consumer behaviour which help us to understand the degree of
variation of consumer behaviour and its impact on marketing in different countries.
4. 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Cross-cultural marketing is defined as "the effort to determine to what extent the
consumers of two or more nations are similar or different. This will facilitate marketers to
understand the psychological, social and cultural aspects of foreign consumers they wish
to target, so as to design effective marketing strategies for each of the specific national
markets involved." The world economy is becoming increasingly cross-cultural. During
the next decades, as marketers enter new international markets, an understanding of how
culture influences consumer behaviour will be crucial for both managers and consumer
researchers. This article presents a framework that integrates and reinterprets current
research in cross-cultural consumer behaviour
Despite the growth in international marketing, cross-cultural research in marketing has
been limited. Recognizing the deficiency of definition of culture in cross-cultural studies,
this paper presents a conceptualization of culture. The relevant literature form cross
cultural psychology, anthropology, consumer behaviour and international marketing is
reviewed in an attempt to describe the impact culture has on salient consumer behaviour
constructs of perception, information processing, value systems, and self concept and
offer hypotheses for marketing management, Additional implications for key areas of
international marketing management are derived.
5. 5
Table of Contents
Topics Page
Number
Culture: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
Culture And Consumer Behavior:---------------------------------------------------------- 6
History:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
Innovativeness:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
Measurement Of Innovation:-----------------------------------------------------------------8
Individual Modernity:-------------------------------------------------------------------------9
Measurement Of Modernity:-----------------------------------------------------------------9
The Interaction Of Culture And Consumer Behavior:-----------------------------------11
Characteristic Features Of A Firm Going Global:---------------------------------------15
Research Issues For The Twenty-First Century:----------------------------------------15
A Buzzing Issue In Modern Era: Internet And Consumer Behavior:-----------------16
Role Of Internet And Its Extent In Marketing:------------------------------------------16
Conceptual Framework: Consumer Trust In A Web Merchant:-----------------------19
Trust and Risk:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
Problems In Cross Cultural Marketing:---------------------------------------------------20
Conclusion:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------21
Reference :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
6. 6
CULTURE:
Culture is a crucial concept for the understanding of consumer behavior because it is
the lens through which people view marketing messages and products. Culture
consists of shared elements that provide the standards for perceiving, believing,
evaluating, communicating, and acting among those who share a language, a
historical period, and a geographic location. As a psychological construct, culture
can be studied in multiple ways—across nations, across ethnic groups within
nations, across individuals within nations (focusing on cultural orientation), and
even within individuals through the priming of cultural values. As will be discussed
presently, regardless of how culture is studied, cultural distinctions have been
demonstrated to have important implications for advertising content, persuasiveness
of appeals, consumer motivation, consumer judgment processes, and consumer
response styles.
CULTURE AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR:
Every year, multinational companies spend billions of dollars in marketing their
products around the world. Some of this money is wasted or, worse, actually
damages the marketer’s reputation through cultural or linguistic faux pas (e.g.,
Ricks, 1983). As new global markets emerge, and existing markets become
increasingly segmented along ethnic or sub cultural lines, the need to market
effectively to consumers who have different cultural values has never been more
acute. Thus, it is no surprise that in the last ten to 15 to 20 years, culture has rapidly
emerged as a central focus of research in consumer psychology and behavior.
Therefore, Interest in cross-cultural consumer research is growing rapidly. In a
relatively short period of time an increasing number of studies have been conducted
focusing on differences/similarities of consumers across cultural boundaries. The
depth as well as the breadth of research in this area is very encouraging. Given the
importance of investigating consumer behavior in a cross-cultural context, it is
surprising that there is no systematic assessment of the constructs and
methodologies used to study consumer behavior differences cross-culturally.
HISTORY:
The first marketing author to recognize cultural differences was George Mateyo
(1942). in an article focusing on market research problems and availability of
market data in Latin American countries, Mateyo noted (p.12):
"Many observers hint that the Latin American temperament precludes the use of
personal interview technique either when applied on-the-street or in-the-home."
Nevertheless, the level of interest in foreign marketing, in general, and cross-
cultural studies, in particular, remained very low during the 1940s. Other published
studies during this period primarily dealt with the institutional aspect of marketing
in other countries and made very little reference, if any, to consumers (for example
see Beattie 1945, Schneider 1948, and Waterhouse 1948).
The interest in foreign markets began to grow in the 1950s as evidenced by two
events. The 1957 Boston Conference on distribution placed heavy emphasis on
papers dealing with foreign marketing and the June, 1958 conference of the
American Marketing Association had a strong international flavor (Buell 1958).
Nevertheless, studies of the 1950s continued to focus on the institutional
7. 7
characteristics of foreign market rather than on consumer behavior differences.
The nature of published articles in the 1960s did not change to any great extent from
the reported studies of .the 1950s. Titles such as "Marketing in and "The Marketing
Structure in it was considerably more frequent (see for example, Westfall & Boyd
1960; Stewart 1961; Goldman 1960; Robinson 1961). Toward the end of the 1960s,
articles dealing with cultural differences began to appear in marketing journals.
Notable among these are Thorelli (1968); Bartels (1960); Furuhashi & Evart (1967)
and Fatt (1967). In general, the studies of the 1960s can be characterized as
descriptive and non-empirical.
During the 1970s, the number of cross-cultural analytical studies increased
dramatically. Consumer differences were studied from a variety of perspectives
using numerous concepts and theories. Some examples include perception of
foreign products and perceived risk (Baumgartner & Jolibert 1978), life style
(Vickers & Benson 1972; Linton & Broadbent 1975; Urban 1976; Douglas 1976,
information search (Swagler 1977, Engledow, Thorelli & Becker 1975), perceived
image of consumers of a specific product (Green, Cunningham and Cunningham
1973), time spent on shopping and other activities (Haws, Gronmo and Arndt 1978),
husband and wife role (Hempel 1972), search behavior and the size of evoked set
(Maddox, Gronhaug, Homans and May 1978), personal values (Munson &
McIntyre 1978), and cultural determinants of consumption (Henry 1976).
Cross-cultural studies of the 1980s have included: choice of preventive health care
(Alexander & McCullough 1980), the methodology of-crossnational research,
(Wallendorf & Reilly 1983; Douglas 1980; Davis, Douglas & Silk 1981; Andreason
and Manning 1980), effects of prior product/ brand experience on the information
seeking behavior, (Arndt, Gronhaug, Homans, Maddox, and May 1981; Kiel &
Layton 1981), variety seeking behavior (Faison 1980), cognitive structure
(Hirschman 1983), gift-giving practices (Jolibert and Fernandez 1983), consumption
patterns (Reilly and Wallendorf 1984), fashion involvement (Tigert, King & Ring
1980), brand and store loyalty (Keng & Ehrenberg 1984), effects of culture on
consumption patterns (Schaninger, Bourgeois & Buss 1985), consumer acquisition
patterns .(Clarke & Soutar 1982), family purchasing behavior (Green, et al. 1983),
consumer stereotypes (Douglas 1976), and cultural assimilations and consumption
patterns (Wallendorf & Reilly 1983).
Despite the incompleteness of the list of studies reported here, the variety of topics
examined to assess cross-cultural differences is impressive. Also note the emphasis
on methodological concerns of cross-cultural research.
While reviewing these cross-cultural studies in detail is beyond the scope of this
paper, a selected number of constructs that seem to be most relevant to the study of
cons-umer behavior in cross-cultural context is examined in greater detail. These
include: innovativeness, individual modernity, novelty seeking, and variety seeking.
8. 8
INNOVATIVENESS:
There is little doubt that both the theory of the diffusion of innovations and the
construct of innovativeness are well established in the literature of marketing and
consumer behavior. In 1981, marketing ranked fourth among all disciplines in its
contribution to diffusion research (Rogers 1983). For the purpose of this paper, a
brief overview of innovativeness is given.
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) define innovativeness as "the degree to which an
individual is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other members of his
system." They further note that "by relatively earlier is meant earlier in terms of
actual time of adoption, rather than whether the individual perceives he adopted the
innovation relatively earlier than others in his system." It is fairly obvious that
Rogers and Shoemaker's definition implies a temporal dimension which leads to
"relative time of adoption" as the operational definition of innovativeness.
From a methodological standpoint, the use of temporal dimension to measure
innovativeness has been criticized because it is rather difficult to determine
precisely when an innovation was introduced into the social system (Hirschman
1980). Nevertheless, a conceptual strength of the definition is its "dependence on
the notion that an innovation is an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by the
individual" (Hirschman 1980).
Recently, Midgley and Dowling (1978), offered another conceptualization of the
concept that suggests innovativeness is "the degree to which an individual is
receptive to new ideas and makes innovation decisions independently of the
communicated experience of others." Furthermore, Midgley and Dowling view
innovativeness as a personality trait possessed to a greater or lesser extent by all
individual members of a society.
Like many other social science constructs, innovativeness is conceptualized and
measured as a single construct, but it is, in reality, a multidimensional phenomena.
Many studies within the marketing tradition have identified several other constructs
that are positively related to innovativeness (Robertson 1971). These include
receptiveness to new products and ideas, risk taking, cosmopolitans, opinion
leadership, social mobility, social participation, other-directedness, receptiveness to
change, personal efficacy, and self confidence (Robertson 1971; Rogers 1983).
A review of the literature by Rogers (1976) reveals that innovativeness as a
construct is particularly relevant for cross-cultural investigations. This is because
innovativeness is thought to be the individual-level equivalent of the multifaceted
phenomena of societal modernization (Rogers 1969).
MEASUREMENT OF INNOVATION:
There are essentially four measures of innovativeness which have been developed to
identify innovators: rating by judges or sociometric method, self designated
measures, longitudinal measures, and cross-sectional measures (Robertson 1971).
But, in a comprehensive review of the literature, Midgley and Dowling (1978)
found that, by and large, consumer researchers have relied on two main approaches
to measure innovativeness, namely, the longitudinal and cross-sectional. The
longitudinal approach is based on a variant of the "relative time of adoption." For
example, those individuals who constitute the first X percent of a given market will
be classified as innovators. In a cross-sectional method "ownership of new
9. 9
products" is used as the basis to identify innovators. This technique focuses on
determining how many items are purchased within a consumption category rather
than time of adoption (Robertson 1971).
INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY:
A survey of the literature indicates that concepts of "modernization" and
"modernity" have been used interchange-ably. Therefore, it is important, at the
outset, to make a distinction between the two terms.
"Modernization," as defined by Gough (1977) is a term used to summarize the
changes that take place in technology, modes of communication, normative
sanctions, economic processes, and world view as a society moves from a less to
more industrialized status, and from a lower higher level of material well-being.
Viewed this way, modernization refers to a process, whereas "modernity" is the
mentality, the state of mind individual members of the society acquire as the process
of modernization gets underway.
Smith and Inkeles (1966, p. 353) proposed a definition of modernity, which
provides a more detailed view of the concept:
... Modern means a national state characterized by a complex of traits including
urbanization, high level of education, industrialization, extensive mechanization,
high rates of social mobility and the like. When applied to individuals, it refers to a
set of attitudes and ways of feeling and acting, presumably of the sort either
generated by or required for effective participation in a modern society.
Major attributes of individual modernity include readiness for new experiences and
openness to innovation, future orientation, democratic orientation, belief in human
and personal efficacy, aspiration, empathy, fatalism, social participation, faith in
science and technology, open mindedness, belief in social mobility, emphasis on
nuclear family, and value for urban life (Inkeles & Smith 1974; Lerner 1958;
Triandis 1973; Schnaiberg 1970; Doob 1976; Dawson, 1967).
MEASUREMENT OF MORDANITY:
Since its conception in the early 1960s, numerous authors have proposed and
constructed a variety of scales to measure the individual modernity syndrome. The
existing scales are quite varied in their basic orientation and approach toward the
concept. The intention here is not to detail these measures, but a brief overview of
the measurement approaches that have been utilized provides the necessary
background.
Generally speaking, two aspects of the measurement approach stand out
distinguishing various scales of individual modernity. The first aspect is the notion
of dimensionality. Some well-known measures of modernity (Inkeles and Smith
1974, Kahl 1968) have been constructed using a unidimensional approach. In this
perspective, it is assumed that psychological change takes place in an integrated
fashion across all behavioral and attitudinal spheres (Schnaiberg 1970). From an
operational point of view, this means that the items in the scale of measurement are
assumed to be inter correlated and, hence, they form a general value syndrome of
modernism.
In contrast, some authors have adopted a multidimensional view (Dawson 1967;
10. 10
Portes 1973; Schnaiberg 1970). These authors believe that individuals who are
affected by the process of modernization are more likely to change some patterns
and commitments, but not others.
While the question of unidimensionality/ multidimensionality must be resolved
through empirical work, there are convincing arguments in the literature which
propose a middle ground position and call for a combination of both approaches
simultaneously.
The second aspect relates to the cultural orientation that has guided the process of
scale construction. Some authors have adopted a culture-specific perspective in the
construction of their scales, meaning that various items in the scale are developed
from "local material" which are salient to the population under study. The set of
culture-specific scales are commonly constructed after extensive field research and
with the aid of local "experts" who serve as judges in the process of item selection.
Furthermore, the direction of modernity is also determined by what local people
consider modern.
In contrast, some authors have opted for a "portable" measure; i.e., a culture-general
scale that would be applicable to any cultural setting. In this approach, items are
selected from the existing literature and the direction of modernity is determined by
what modernity theory considers modern. (For details of the existing scales, see
Eshghi 1983.)
Novelty Seeking and Variety Seeking
Variety seeking and novelty seeking, termed exploratory behavior, has been
primarily studied in psychology (Raju & Venkatesan 1980).
Hirschman (1980) defines novelty seeking as an internal drive that motivates the
individual to seek out novel information. She distinguishes two aspects of novelty
seeking. The first relates to seeking new and potentially discrepant information
while the second is the extent to which individuals vary their choices among known
stimuli. The latter aspect may be better described as variety seeking or stimulus
variation. It is obvious from this definition that novelty seeking is internally
determined and it represents an innate search for information. The rationale for
novelty seeking stems from a desire for self-preservation in an unknown world
(Hirschman 1980).
The extensive literature in psychology leaves no doubt those individuals are
different in terms of novelty seeking behavior due to certain psychological traits
possessed to a greater or lesser extent by the individual members of the society.
From the few studies of novelty seeking behavior in the area of consumer research it
can be concluded that novelty seeking behavior is positively related to receptiveness
to new ideas and innovations and risk taking (Raju & Venkatesan 1980).
Furthermore the literature in psychology reveals that novelty seeking is related to
dogmatism (close windedness), democratic orientation (liberalism) and ability to
deal with complex situation (Hoyer and Ridgway 1984).
Application of novelty seeking/variety seeking to assess cross-cultural differences
has been very limited. One reason may be that, relatively speaking, novelty seeking
has received greater attention by the psychologists than consumer researchers and,
hence, a unified framework to organize and integrate previous work does not exist
(Hoyer & Ridgway 1984). The only cross-cultural study that utilized the notion of
variety seeking to assess cross-cultural differences is the study conducted by Faison
(1980). He found that both Japanese and Americans had a desire for variety
regarding dinner entrees and musical selection but opted for consistency regarding
the toothpaste brand used. This research has been criticized on methodological
11. 11
grounds (Hansen 1980).
Measurement of Novelty Seeking/Variety Seeking.
Novelty seeking/variety seeking can be measured by scales constructed of items
asking individuals how willing they are to seek information that is new-and
different (Hirschman 1980). In most consumer behavior studies, however, novelty
seeking has been operationalized by asking concrete questions concerning various
domains of consumption. For example, a typical scale may include questions such
as "How willing are you to try new foods?"
It is apparent from the above discussion that variety seeking and novelty seeking
have been treated as interchangeable constructs; i.e., they are conceptually
indistinguishable. In reality, however, there may be a slight difference between the
two. Variety seeking seems to be most closely related to a specific behavior and it
has been operationalized accordingly. For example, brand switching behavior is
thought to be a function of variety seeking, whereas novelty seeking is a-more
generalized construct and thus, represent a higher level of abstraction. For the
purpose of this paper, we treat novelty seeking and variety seeking as two separate
but interrelated constructs.
THE INTERACTION OF CULTURE AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR:
An individual's behavior is a result of that individual's cultural value system for a
particular context. Individuals' cultural value systems are developed over time as
they are socialized into a particular group. Societal culture as well as regional
subculture and familial values all influence the formation of an individual's cultural
value system. Thus, the cultural value system includes cultural elements that
individuals have in common with the group(s) to which they belong, as well as
idiosyncratic values unique to the individual. As the model suggests, culture affects
consumer behavior, which itself may reinforce the manifestations of culture (Peter
and Olson, 1998). An individual's consumption behavior may be viewed and
imitated or rejected by others. It can then become the group's norm of behavior and
be identified as part of the culture of a given population. Marketers' actions serve as
a vehicle to transfer meanings or values from the culturally constituted world to
consumer goods (McCracken, 1986, 1988), so marketing communications are
represented in the model as a moderator of the effect of culture on consumer
behavior. At the same time, marketing communications may also affect a culture's
12. 12
manifestations through advertising (for example, Calvin Klein's ads have reinforced
the ``thinness'' value in American society). Of course, as Figure 1 shows, marketing
communications can affect consumer behavior independent of culture. When
considering this model, it is worth noting that, from an emic perspective, culture
may not be seen as a construct apart from and causing behavior. Emic researchers
view culture as inseparable from the individual, as an inherent quality (Geertz,
1973). We
depict culture as causing consumer behavior in order to develop a framework that
managers can easily implement to compare the behavior of consumers from
different cultures and isolate the cultural causes of consumer behavior differences.
Culture influences behavior through its manifestations: values, heroes, rituals,
and symbols (Hofstede, 1997). These are the forms in which culturally-determined
knowledge is stored and expressed. Thus, each cultural group possesses different
cultural manifestations. We utilize these manifestations, as they encompass most
elements of culture described by other authors (e.g. Sojka and Tansuhaj, 1995). We
will now describe the four manifestations in detail.
Values: The termvalues rests atthe heart ofmost definitions of culture. In fact, most
research seems to agree that values drive an individual's behavior. Historically,
consumer researchers have often cited Rokeach (1968, p. 161), who viewed ``a
value as a centrally held, enduring belief which guides actions and judgments across
specific situations and beyond immediate goals to more ultimate end-states of
existence''. Examples of values are ``freedom,'' ``pleasure'', ``inner harmony'', and
``happiness'' (Rokeach, 1973). There are different taxonomies of values. For
example, Rokeach's view of values implies a differentiation between preferred end
states of being (terminal values) and preferred modes of behavior or means to
achieve end states (instrumental values).Other authors divide values into the
desirable and the desired (Hofstede, 1980). Yet other authors classify values into
global values, domain-specific values, and evaluations of product attributes (Vinson
et al., 1977). Global values are the most centrally held, while attribute evaluations
are the least central and are situation-specific. Hofstede's (1980) landmark study of
the dimensions of culture can be considered, an etic approach to the study of
cultural values. That study explicitly described values as the core of culture and
defined them using Rokeach's definition. Hence, its premise was that the values
preferred by a group of people separate them from other groups and thus cultures
can be compared with each other using values as a standard. Hofstede's study
revealed four dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance,
individualism, and masculinity.
Emic research focusing on consumption and the meaning of objects in the
lives of the individual has also applied values theory to explain how we
organize information in our environment.McCracken (1988),for example,refers
to ``cultural principles''. These are the ideas according to which phenomena are
organized, evaluated and construed. Examples of cultural principles include
``strength'', ``refinement'', or ``naturalism''. Cultural principles help individuals
assign meaning to the world that surrounds them. People's behavior embodies
and expresses these principles. McCracken's cultural principles bear a strong
resemblance to Rokeach's values.
Other emic researchers have also found cultural values to be at the root of
certain consumer behavior processes such as the diffusion of innovations
(Arnould, 1989).
13. 13
We can conclude, then, that both the etic and the emic philosophies seem to
refer to similar constructs but from different perspectives (between-cultures
versus within-cultures). The notion of values, or at least some variants of it, is
central to most views of culture. The definition of values has evolved overtime,
but it has remained a central component of culture. Therefore, in this article we
will use the term values as an inclusive construct composed of many of the
variations in definitions and terminology developed by cross-cultural
researchers.
Heroes: The term heroes refers to ``persons, alive or dead, real or imaginary,
who possess characteristics which are highly prized in a culture, and who thus
serve as models for behavior'' (Hofstede, 1997, p. 8). This concept will be
extended in the present article to include reference groups and opinion leaders
(McCracken, 1986, 1989). Heroes may influence consumer behavior through
their association with certain products and brands (e.g. Michael Jordan and
Nike sports apparel). Marketing communications offer an obvious vehicle for
this association.
Rituals:The concept of rituals is often erroneously interpreted as behavior of
religious or mystical significance. While religious rituals are indeed an
important type of ritual, Rook's (1985, p. 252) definition of rituals is much
broader:
The term ritual refers to a type of expressive, symbolic activity constructed of
multiple behaviors that occur in a fixed, episodic sequence, and that tend to be
repeated over time.
Ritual behavior is dramatically scripted and acted out and is performed with
formality, seriousness, and inner intensity.
McCracken (1988, p. 84) adds that a ritual is ``a social action devoted to the
manipulation of the cultural meaning for purposes of collective and individual
communication and categorization. Ritual is an opportunity to affirm, evoke,
14. 14
assign, or revise the conventional symbols and meanings of the cultural order''.
While Rook's (1985) definition focuses on the form that rituals take,
McCracken's emphasizes the goal of ritual behavior.
Rituals are pervasive in any society. There are grooming rituals, romantic
rituals, feeding rituals, and they are constantly being performed by all
members of a society. Rituals are important for consumer behavior because
they involve the consumption of goods and services. Rituals give origin to
consumers' cognitive schemata and scripts, which ultimately reinforce
ritualistic behavior. Marketers' actions moderate the reciprocal relationship
between rituals and consumer behavior through advertising, which models
ritualistic behavior and helps it spread. Consumer products play a significant
role in ritualistic behavior. Products can be employed in their symbolic
capacity to operationalize the ritual (Solomon and Anand, 1985). Products can
be considered, therefore, as ritual artifacts and their consumption as part of a
ritual.
Symbols: Symbols are a broad category of processes and objects that carry
a meaning that is unique to a particular group of people (Geertz, 1973, p. 89).
Hence, a society's symbols may not exist in different cultures, or their
meaning may be different. Language is a set of symbols, as are different
gestures, pictures, or objects. The symbols most frequently studied by
consumer researchers are language (Sherry and Camargo, 1987) and
consumer products.
Several authors have examined the symbolic nature of products and
consumption. We can infer from this body of research that product
symbolism is generated at the societal level (Solomon, 1983). Cultural values,
expressed in society's perceptions of reality and beliefs of what is desirable,
seem to be transferred to products through vehicles like advertising (Belk,
1985). These products then become charged with cultural meaning. For
example, a pair of sneakers can be elevated to a cultural symbol for the value
``a sense of accomplishment'' by ads that show Michael Jordan wearing them.
Finally, individuals, in their efforts to define their social self, are moved to
consume the products which are now charged with symbolic meaning
(Durgee, 1986).
The central role of values: We can infer from previous research (e.g. Belk,
1985; Hofstede, 1997) that values have a central role amongst the other
manifestations of culture and that the relationship between these and values
is characterized by a mutual influence. Hence, symbols generally express
cultural values. Through consumption rituals, consumer goods become
symbols of cultural values. At the same time, symbols reinforce values, or
may even shift them. For example, if basketball shoes are seen as a symbol
for wealth and repeated advertising associates wealth with a desirable end
state, values may shift in certain societal groups toward considering wealth
as a terminal value.
The nature of the relationship between language-as-a-symbol and values has been
subject to debate (e.g. Pinker, 1994). Some authors suggest that
language influences values, and others propose that cultural values determine
the form of languages. It is possible that the relationship is bidirectional. For
example, cultural values may motivate the creation of words that may not
exist in other cultures. At the same time, language may give origin to values
that are literally ``unthinkable'' in other cultures because of a lack of adequate
15. 15
CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF A FIRM GOING GLOBAL:
1. High market share in the domestic market
2. Advantageous economies of scale
3. Access to marketing/manufacturing bases across global borders
4. Availability of resources and capability to absorb huge losses
5. Product/technology clout
RESEARCH ISSUES FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY:
The effect of manifestations of culture on consumer behaviour Cultural differences
between social groups materialize in four manifestations: values, symbols, and rituals
(Hofstede, 1997). Values have received most of the attention from cross-cultural
consumer researchers. The literature on the effect of values on consumer behaviour
dimensions must now be complemented by research on the other three manifestations of
culture. In particular, symbols and rituals must be more clearly understood in order to
terms to discuss them (consider the revolution that Arabic numerals brought
to mathematics and the subsequent shift in cultural values concerning the
physical world). However, existing research seems to be inconclusive in this
area.
The definition of heroes as expressed above implies that heroes are an
embodiment of cultural values. Heroes are chosen because they are individuals
or groups that represent what members of a cultural group believe in. The
relationship between values and heroes can also be bidirectional. As described
by McCracken (1986, p. 76), new cultural meanings can be invented ``in a
modest way. This invention is undertaken by opinion leaders who help shape
and refine existing cultural meaning, encouraging the reform of cultural
categories and principles''.
The definitions of rituals included in this article imply that rituals are for the
most part an affirmation of values .However, rituals can also influence cultural
values to the point where values may be revised and cultural meaning is
manipulated (McCracken, 1986). For example, consider a rite of passage that
uncovers or reinforces certain values upon the uninitiated individuals, thus
making them members of the group.
16. 16
better define their effect on the dimensions of consumer behaviour. Other research
questions that need to be addressed
include:
What is the relationship among the different manifestations of culture?
Are cultural values always the origin of symbols, rituals and heroes?
.If values indeed determine the specific forms of the other three are:
Manifestations, is there also a reciprocal effect?
How stable and exhaustive are the manifestations of culture?
Models of consumer behaviour may need to be expanded to take into account cultural
dimensions. This could be done by either generalizing existing models to include cultural
variables (e.g. items belonging to the four cultural manifestations of our framework), or
by implementing different models in different cultures. Following are several examples of
how future research might proceed in this task.
A BUZZING ISSUE IN MODERN ERA: INTERNET AND CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR:
Many have speculated that trust plays a critical role in stimulating consumer purchases
over the Internet. Most of the speculations have rallied around U.S. consumers purchasing
from U.S.–based online merchants. The global nature of the Internet raises questions
about the robustness of trust effects across cultures. Culture may also affect the
antecedents of consumer trust; that is, consumers in different cultures might have
differing expectations of what makes a web merchant trustworthy. Here we report on a
cross-cultural validation of an Internet consumer trust model. The model examined both
antecedents and consequences of consumer trust in a Web merchant. The results provide
tentative support for generalizing the model.
ROLE OF INTERNET AND ITS EXIENT IN MARKETING:
17. 17
A retailer can use an Internet presence to reach consumers all around the world. Quelch
and Klein (1996) herald how the Internet makes the expanded range of products, services,
and information accessible for consumers from geographically distant and/or emerging
markets. Hamel and Sampler (1998) declare the beginning of “a world where customers
are no longer hostages to geography…” (p. 88).
There is little doubt that the Internet provides enormous potential benefits for consumers
worldwide. Wider choice ranges, lower prices, and entirely new products have become
available in many product categories such as books, CDs, and travel packages, to
consumers who are physically far away from the world's centres of traditional commerce
(Economist, 1997). Amazon.com sells 20% of its books to foreign destinations (Hamel &
Sampler, 1998). One Finnish consumer reported savings of 60% (including surface mail
shipping costs) having purchased a business book from an online store, Amazon.com,
based in Seattle, US than from a Finnish book store (Filenius, 1996). A price comparison
with a UK-based online store, Business Book Direct, was similarly favourable compared
to that available locally. A significant price advantage (25%) remained even if the book
was shipped via an express package carrier.
Although favourable pricing might be a necessity to win orders by overseas customers, it
may not be sufficient. Doney and Cannon (1997) label trust as an order qualifier for
purchase decisions. That is, in order for a consumer to place an order, the consumer must
trust the merchant first. Trust is a belief or expectation that the word or promise by the
merchant can be relied upon and the seller will not take advantage of the consumer's
vulnerability (Geyskens et al., 1996). Trust is a critical factor in any relationship in which
the trustor (e.g., consumer) does not have direct control over the actions of a trustee (e.g.,
merchant or store), and there are possible negative consequences of one party not
fulfilling its promises (Deutch, 1958; Mayer et al., 1995).
Quelch and Klein (1996) speculate that in the early stages of Internet development, trust
is a critical factor in stimulating purchases over the Internet. Keen (1997) warns that trust
is not only a short-term issue but the most significant long-term barrier for realizing the
potential of Internet marketing to consumers. An experiential survey of U.S.-based online
surfers, new to Internet based shopping, found the shoppers fascinated by international
shopping opportunities on the Web, but they were skeptical about actual purchasing from
overseas sites (Jarvenpaa & Todd, 1997). Others report widespread distrust among
consumers about Internet-based merchants (Culnan & Armstrong, 1999).
Consequently, the role of trust casts some doubts on Internet consumer merchandising.
Consumers are unlikely to patronize Internet stores that fail to create a sense of trust.
Trust can only exist if the consumer believes that the seller has both the ability and the
motivation to deliver goods and services of the quality expected by the consumer. This
belief may be more difficult for an Internet merchant to engender than it is for a
18. 18
conventional merchant. In Internet commerce, merchants depend on an impersonal
electronic storefront to act on their behalf. Additionally, the Internet lowers the resources
required to enter and exit the marketplace. Internet merchants might be considered fly-by-
night as there are fewer assurances for consumers that the retailer will stay in business for
some time. In traditional contexts, a consumer's trust has been found to be affected by the
seller's investments in physical buildings, facilities, and personnel (Doney & Cannon
1997). Retailers on the Internet thus face a situation in which consumer trust might be
expected to be inherently low.
The global context of the Internet further challenges engendering trust in a consumer.
From traditional marketing contexts, we have learned that consumer trust is most readily
developed when the consumer has a positive trusting stance in general, has had prior
interactions with the merchant, interacts with a knowledgeable salesperson with similar or
familiar background to the consumer, is protected by strong social and legal structures,
and expects to be patronizing the merchant for a prolonged period (Geyskens et al.,
1998). When consumers are scattered around the world, these sources of trust are not
readily available for the merchant to harness.
Moreover, the fundamental bases of trust might vary across nationalities. Those
consumers coming from individualistic countries might have a higher trusting stance in
general and be more willing to base their trust in the merchant on factors that are inferred
from an impersonal web site than consumers from collectivistic countries. Dawar et al
(1996) found that personal and impersonal sources of information had different impacts
on individuals across cultures. Doney et al (1998) have called for empirical studies
examining the ways national culture impacts trust and trust building processes.
Jarvenpaa, Tractinsky, and Vitale (1999) developed and tested a theoretical model about
the antecedents and consequences of trust in an Internet store. The model suggests that
customers' evaluations of stores' reputation and size affect their trust in the store. In
addition, Jarvenpaa et al found that the degree to which consumers trust a Web store
affects their perceptions of the risk involved in purchasing from the store and their
attitudes towards the store. Our purpose in this paper is to cross-validate the Jarvenpaa et
al. model in a cross-cultural setting. The study that Jarvenpaa et al. (1999) carried out in
Australia was replicated in Israel and partially replicated in Finland. The replications
19. 19
enabled us to test for cross-cultural differences, and at the same time to assess the validity
of the model across national borders.
This paper focuses solely on the consumer's initial development of trust in a commercial
store on the Internet. The scope does not include how trust develops upon repeated visits
or how trust operates through third parties that might mediate between the consumer and
the store. This paper is limited to the type of Internet shopping situation in which the
consumer is targeting the search to a specific category of merchandise (e.g., books and
airline tickets) and is dynamically browsing through a variety of merchants in that
category (e.g., books).
The next section reviews literature on trust and culture. The third section outlines the
methodology of the experimental survey. The fourth section reports on the results from
the empirical study, and the final section discusses the results.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: CONSUMER TRUST IN A WEB MERCHANT:
We define trust in the Internet store as a consumer's willingness to rely on the seller and
take action in circumstances where such action makes the consumer vulnerable to the
seller. This definition builds on one provided in (Mayer et al. (1995) and ( McKnight et
al. (1998). The definition emphasizes the cognitive dimensions of trust and views trust as
a rationale choice process. The cognitive view is a narrow treatment of trust excluding the
affective and social dimensions (see Kramer, 1999). ( Mayer et al. (1995) proposed a
model of antecedents of organizational trust based on a dyad of trustor and trustee. The
antecedent of trusting behaviour is trusting intention, or the willingness to be dependent
on another person. Trusting intention is in turn influenced by a trustor's propensity to
trust, the trustor's perceived characteristics of a trustee (e.g., trustworthiness of trustee
based on his or her integrity, benevolence, and ability), and indirectly the trustor's
observations of the trustee's behavior. The model is trustor-centric and acknowledges
others only in terms of what they do to the trustor, focuses on the trustor's purpose of
interaction and the trustor's outcomes of interactions. The model assumes that the
decision to trust is made by the trustor and the good resulting from trust is of direct
personal benefit to a trustor.
Besides building on the assumptions of the Mayer et al. model, we draw upon research in
industrial marketing. There is a scarcity of research on trust in consumer marketing
(Geyskens et al., 1998). A meta-analysis of empirical research on antecedents and
consequences of trust in marketing relationships found no significant differences in
results between industrial and consumer categories of merchandise (Geyskens et al.,
1998).
20. 20
In industrial marketing, the most salient source of a buyer's trust in the merchant
organization is the salesperson; trust in the salesperson is dependent on the salesperson's
expertise, likability, and similarity to the customer (Doney & Cannon, 1997). In the
Internet context, the salesperson is replaced by a website (Lohse & Spiller, 1998). The
web site mediates the relationship between the consumer and the merchant organization.
Sales organizations have been found to create trust in the customer by demonstrating that
they consider their customers' interests and are willing to make short-term sacrifices.
These sacrifices convey that the merchant is not purely driven by a selfish short-term
profit motive (Ganesan & Hess, 1997).
TRUST AND RISK:
Trust and risk are closely interrelated (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust is a social lubricant that
allows consumers to transact with merchants who are not part of their immediate network.
Trust in a merchant mitigates the consumer's perception of the risks involved in a
purchase situation. The higher the initial perceptions of risk, the higher the trust needed to
facilitate a transaction.
Risk is defined as a consumer's perceptions of the uncertainty and adverse consequences
of engaging in an activity (Dowling & Staelin, 1994). The Internet is an open, global,
heterogeneous, and constantly changing marketing channel. Moreover, the channel makes
it hard to inspect physical goods. There seems little assurance that the customer will get
what he or she sees on the computer screen, in the quantity ordered. If problems arise,
sellers can always blame technical problems that are beyond their control. Many sites do
not even confirm the order, let alone stay in touch with the shopper until the merchandise
has been received or consumed. Because of the newness of the channel, many consumers
may be uncertain about the hazards at present and their full consequences. All these
reasons increase the uncertainty, and possibly the perceived riskiness of shopping on the
Internet. When risk is present, trust is needed to make transactions possible. That is,
consumer trust toward a merchant reduces the perceived riskiness of a specific web store.
PROBLEMS IN CROSS CULTURAL MARKETING:
1. Problems related to product selection: The marketer going for cross cultural marketing
has to select the customers/ market not on the basis of the superficial similarities of age or
income, but by using the real motivating factors that prompt them to accept or reject
products.
2. Problems related to promotion/marketing communication: e.g. Ariel in the middle east
and also Pepsi.
21. 21
3. Problems related to pricing: the marketer has to adjust his pricing policies according to
the local economic conditions and customs.
4. Problems related to selection of distribution channels: in Japan, P & G used this to sell
soap.
CONCLUSION:
Most aspects of consumer behaviour are culture-bound. This article reviews the cultural
relationships with the self, personality, and attitude, which are the basis of consumer
behaviour models and branding and advertising strategies. An increasing body of
knowledge is available that helps explain differences in consumer behaviour across
culture. This article reviewed a number of studies of basic cross-cultural differences.
When designing global marketing, branding, and advertising strategies companies ignore
these at their peril. Cultural models have been developed that explain differences and help
develop strategies that target consumers across cultures more effectively.
References:
Aaker,J.L. and Maheswaran,D. (1997), ``The effect of cultural orientation on
persuasion'',Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 24,December, pp. 315-28.
Aaker, J.L. and Schmitt, B.H. (1997), ``The influence of culture on the self-expressive
use of brands'', in Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (Eds), Advances in Consumer
Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo,UT,Vol. 25, p. 12.
Aaker, J.L. and Williams, P. (1998), ``Empathy versus pride: the influence of emotional
appeals across cultures'',Journal ofConsumer Research,Vol. 25,December, pp. 241-61.
Andreasen, A.R. (1990), ``Cultural interpenetration: a critical consumer research issue for
the 1990s'', in Goldberg, M., Gorn, G. and Pollay, R. (Eds), Advances in Consumer
Research, Association for Consumer Research, Provo,UT,Vol. 17, pp. 847-9.
Arnould, E.J. (1989), ``Toward a broadened theory of preference formation and the
diffusion of innovations: cases from Zinder Province, Niger Republic'', Journal of
Consumer Research,Vol. 16, pp. 239-67.
http://iba8010kelly.alliant.wikispaces.net/file/view/Culture+and+Innovation+-
+An+integrative+framework+for+cross-cultural+consumer+behavior.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00337.x/full
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-
proceedings.aspx?Id=12127http://business.illinois.edu/shavitt/Handbook%20Chapter%20
page%20proofs.pdf
