consumer ethnocentrism- antecedents
TRANSCRIPT
Consumer ethnocentrism: anintegrative review of its
antecedents and consequencesMahesh N. Shankarmahesh
College of Business Administration, University of Missouri – St Louis,St Louis, Missouri, USA
Abstract
Purpose – To provide an integrative review of the antecedents and consequences of consumerethnocentrism (CET).
Design/methodology/approach – A comprehensive review of works on CET to date is putforward. An integrative framework and a detailed summary table are provided.
Findings – Four categories of antecedents, namely, socio-psychological, political, economic anddemographic are gathered from the literature. Direct consequences and indirect consequences throughrelevant mediators and moderators are identified. Future research directions are offered.
Practical implications – The compendium of antecedents and consequences of CET can be used byinternational marketing managers for their segmentation and target marketing strategies.
Originality/value – As new vistas emerge for furthering international trade in goods and services,this paper provides a timely review and an integrative framework of existing research on CET, itsantecedents and consequences. This paper contributes to the marketing discipline both by integratinga wide body of research on an important international marketing topic and by offering broad avenuesfor further research.
Keywords Consumers, Ethnocentrism
Paper type Literature review
IntroductionSince, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union, therehas been a relative convergence of economic ideology throughout the world ushering inan era of liberalization and globalization. These changes have added to the rate ofgrowth of world trade which “has been higher than that of world GNP since the mid1950s” (Porter, 1986, p. 15). Even as tariff barriers have come down considerably in thepast decade or so, non-tariff barriers persist. Given the wide scope of non-tariffbarriers, some authors such as Jeannet and Hennesy (1995) have contended that anybarrier to international trade other than formal tariffs can be classified as a non-tariffbarrier. The focus of international trade negotiations has been increasingly shifting tonon-tariff barriers with countries and regional blocs attempting to achieve uniformproduct-related regulations in a wide variety of industries. Even as substantialprogress has been made towards globalization of businesses through the elimination oftariff and non-tariff barriers, Porter (1986, p. 3) foresaw the emergence of new forms ofprotectionism to ward-off international competition that he labeled them“cross-currents” of globalization. He articulated in the following manner:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
IMR23,2
146
Received January 2004Revised September 2004Accepted December 2004
International Marketing ReviewVol. 23 No. 2, 2006pp. 146-172q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0265-1335DOI 10.1108/02651330610660065
While the post-war trend toward free trade has brought tariffs down and spawned regionaltrade pacts, the pressures and upheavals of the new international competition have takentheir toll in a new wave of protectionism. Protectionism is not only on the rise but is takingmore and more subtle forms. . . (p. 4).
One of the most enduring forms of non-tariff barriers is that of “consumerethnocentrism (CET)” (due to Shimp and Sharma, 1987). CET indicates a generalproclivity of buyers to shun all imported products irrespective of price or qualityconsiderations due to nationalistic reasons. CET can be “institutionalized in the form ofan informal government procurement policy that unduly favors domestic companies”(Kotabe and Helsen, 1998) or can be prevalent as “a general societal tendency” (Shimpand Sharma, 1987).
The objective of the paper is to review the antecedents and consequences of CET byproviding an integrative framework and suggest directions for future research. Therest of the paper is organized as follows. First, ethnocentrism and “consumerethnocentrism” (due to Shimp and Sharma, 1987) are defined and their properties arediscussed. Second, the environmental and demographic antecedents of CET areexplored. Third, the relationships between CET and its consequences are examinedalong with the roles of relevant moderating and mediating variables. Finally,concluding comments are made.
Ethnocentrism and consumer ethnocentrismBefore addressing CET, the broader concept of ethnocentrism must be reviewed. Thisis because, as mentioned earlier, the concept of “consumer ethnocentrism” wasconstrued by Shimp and Sharma (1987) as a domain-specific sub-set of ethnocentrism.Also, previous studies that inquired into the antecedents of CET and those that madeinternational comparisons have all invariably borrowed heavily from the literaturepertaining to ethnocentrism (Sharma et al., 1995; Klein et al., 1998).
Sumner (1906) was the first to provide a formal definition of ethnocentrism (Shimpand Sharma, 1987). He defined ethnocentrism as:
. . . the view of things in which one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others arescaled and rated with reference to it. . . Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boastsitself superior, exalts its own divinities and looks with contempt on outsiders (p. 13).
Murdock (1931) made the observation that ethnocentrism is not only applicable to“tribes and nations” but “reveals itself in all kinds of social groups, developing intofamily pride, sectionalism, religious prejudice, racial discrimination, and patriotism”(Sharma et al., 1995, p. 27). The distinguishing feature of ethnocentrism lies not asmuch in the development of an “in-group” pride as in its equal contempt for out-groupsand portrayal of “out-groups” as the “anti-thesis” (Levine and Campbell, 1972). Lewis(1976) contended that ethnocentrism is “a universal phenomenon that is rooted deeplyin most areas of inter-group relations” (Sharma et al., 1995, p. 27). Some authors evenargued that ethnocentrism is a part of human nature (Lynn, 1976).
Shimp and Sharma (1987) formulated CET as “a domain specific concept for thestudy of consumer behavior with marketing implications” (Sharma et al., 1995). CETwas regarded as a “unique economic form of ethnocentrism that captures the beliefsheld by consumers about the appropriateness and indeed morality of purchasingforeign-made products” (Shimp and Sharma, 1987, p. 280). Again, CET denotes
Consumerethnocentrism
147
consumers’ tendencies to distinguish between products of the in-group (home country)and out-groups (foreign countries) and to avoid buying foreign products due tonationalistic reasons. Even as non-ethnocentric consumers evaluate products on theirown merits with respect to price, quality and other desired features, ethnocentricconsumers consider purchasing imported products to be incorrect due to perceptions oflosses to the domestic economy (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). It is noteworthy that evenbefore Shimp and Sharma (1987), there had been a stream research that measuredconsumers’ general disposition towards buying foreign products. Examples of suchstudies include but are not limited to Anderson and Cunningham (1972) and Dornoffet al. (1974).
Shimp and Sharma (1987) elaborated on the specific properties of CET. First, it is ageneral tendency “in toto” as opposed to a specific attitude. Second, it results from aperceived concern for one’s own country and harmful effects that imports may bring tooneself and countrymen. Third, it has an ethical dimension in that buying importedgoods is regarded as being unpatriotic and indifferent to the plight of fellowcountrymen put out of work. Fourth, it is inelastic with respect to price or other productrelated attributes. Fifth, it is assumed to be socialized during early childhood like otherbehavioral patterns (p. 288). Sixth, overall CET in a social system is considered to be anaggregation of individual tendencies. This conceptualization of the authors is rathersimplistic keeping in mind that it ignores the aggregation at several intermediate levels(such as in organizations and institutions) that occur for any social phenomena.Finally, ethnocentrism is not just limited to consumer products, and preferences fordomestic goods is also present in industrial goods (Crawford and Lamb, 1981).
CET is often confused with “country-of-origin bias” although the two topics aredistinct and independent of each other. Herche (1992) explained the difference byproviding an example. A US consumer can have a positive country of origin (COO)effect say for French wine due to its product-class attributes but decide not to buy itdue to nationalistic reasons. Thus, CET is more of a “general tendency” to avoidbuying foreign products as opposed to a specific “country of origin (COO)” image.Moreover, COO represents the cognitive and affective aspects of consumer decisionmaking, whereas CET symbolizes the affective and normative aspects of buyerbehavior. Consumers tend to rely on COO cues when more information about theproduct is lacking (Olsen et al., 1993). They may also be influenced by overall affectiveresponses that they may have towards particular countries (p. 308). CET, on the otherhand, is influenced not only by affective responses towards one’s own country, but alsoby normative pressures that a consumer feels towards buying domestic products(p. 308). This normative dimension is a unique aspect of CET.
Shimp and Sharma (1987) were the first to develop a comprehensive scale tomeasure CET even though other instruments to measure “attitudes towards foreigngoods” existed at that time. Notable among these is the Reirson’s (1966) scale whichwas widely used by early researchers such as Dornoff et al. (1974). The internationalvalidity of the CETSCALE, originally developed in the US, was confirmed by severalstudies such as Durvasula et al. (1997), Hult et al. (1999) and Luque-Martinez et al.(2000). Even though the CETSCALE is the predominant scale used in marketingresearch to measure ethnocentric tendencies among consumers in various nations, it isnot the only scale for the above-mentioned purpose. Stating that the CETSCALE wasonly relevant to contemporary American society, Festervand and Sokoya (1994)
IMR23,2
148
developed an attitudinal scale of ethnocentrism in the context of Nigeria measuringamong other things consumers’ disposition to the socio-political and religiousphilosophies of the exporting nation.
Antecedents of consumer ethnocentrismThis section summarizes the antecedents of CET mentioned and empirically tested inprevious research. There are four broad categories of antecedents, socio-psychological,economic, political and demographic. The conflicting results of empirical studies thatmeasured the correlations between demographic variables and attitudes towardsimported products are also presented. Table I provides a summary of previous work onthe antecedents and consequences of CET. Figure 1 shows an integrated graphicframework of the same.
Socio-psychological antecedentsCultural openness. Cultural openness is determined by willingness to interact withpeople from other cultures and experience some of their artifacts (Sharma et al., 1995).Studies that found a negative relationship between cultural openness and CET (Shimpand Sharma, 1987; Howard, 1989) seem to have relied heavily on conventional wisdomthat “cross-cultural interactions and travel opportunities can broaden one’s mind”(Berkowitz, 1962). However, such studies fail to consider another adage namely that of“familiarity breeds contempt” (Wirth, 1936) in the same vein. It is rather simplistic togeneralize that cross-cultural interactions and familiarity with other cultures willmitigate ethnocentric tendencies in general and CET in specific. As a matter of fact,Skinner (1959) observed that members of a group that have “the most contact with newcultures such as border dwellers, travelers and diplomats tend to be extremelyethnocentric or nationalistic” (Rosenblatt, 1964, p. 138). Thus, instead of simplisticallylooking at correlations between “cultural openness” and CET, future research shouldtake into account both the effects of potential moderators such as the “self referencecriterion” and possible interaction effects with other antecedent variables such as“worldmindedness.” Self-reference criterion (SRC) is defined in the “cross-culturalmanagement” literature as the tendency to judge other cultures using one’s own set ofvalues as the reference point (Jeannet and Hennesy, 1995). SRC has been found to be themain reason behind several cross-cultural blunders (Jeannet and Hennesy, 1995). Thus,including SRC as a moderator can provide additional insights into the relationshipbetween cultural openness and CET. One can also look at the interrelationshipsbetween cultural openness and “worldmindedness,” another antecedent of CET. Theconcept of “worldmindedness” is discussed next.
Worldmindedness. The concept of worldmindedness is distinct from that of“cultural openness.” While cultural openness refers to opportunities to interact withcultures other than one’s own, worldmindedness points to a “world-view of theproblems of humanity” (Sampson and Smith, 1957; Skinner, 1988). Thus, there is atheoretical possibility that a person can be “worldminded” even without interactingwith other cultures. Worldmindedness, much like geocentrism, is a “state of mind” inwhich “consumers use humankind as the primary reference group instead of respectivenationalities” (Rawwas et al., 1996, p. 22). Some of the characteristics of worldmindedconsumers include interest in and knowledge of international affairs, regards for“world spirit” and consensus development (Gomberg, 1994). Empirical support for the
Consumerethnocentrism
149
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
An
tece
den
tsan
dd
efin
itio
nS
ocio
-psy
chol
ogic
alan
tece
den
tsC
ult
ura
lop
enn
ess:
Wil
lin
gn
ess
toin
tera
ctw
ith
peo
ple
from
oth
ercu
ltu
res
and
exp
erie
nce
som
eof
thei
rar
tifa
cts
(Sh
arm
aet
al.,
1995
)
Sh
imp
and
Sh
arm
a(1
987)
US
Su
rvey
Au
tos,
app
arel
and
con
sum
erg
ood
sv
uln
erab
leto
fore
ign
com
pet
itio
n(¼
Gro
up
I)
L.A
.le
sset
hn
ocen
tric
than
cult
ure
sD
env
er,
Det
roit
and
Car
olin
as
How
ard
(198
9)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
V,
clot
hin
g,
food
,to
ys
and
hom
eap
pli
ance
s(¼
Gro
up
II)
Wes
tco
ast
less
eth
noc
entr
icth
anm
id-w
est
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Fou
rn
eces
sary
(med
icin
e,b
eef,
kit
chen
war
ean
dP
Cs)
and
six
rela
tiv
ely
un
nec
essa
ryp
rod
uct
s(g
olf
clu
bs,
liq
uor
,b
anan
as,
insu
ran
ce,
larg
ere
frig
erat
ors
and
jew
elry
)(¼
Gro
up
III)
Neg
ativ
e
Su
han
dK
won
(200
2)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Wor
ldm
ind
edn
ess:
Ast
ate
ofm
ind
inw
hic
hco
nsu
mer
su
seh
um
ank
ind
asth
ep
rim
ary
refe
ren
ceg
rou
pin
stea
dof
resp
ecti
ve
nat
ion
alit
ies
(Raw
was
etal.,
1996
)
Raw
was
etal.
(199
6)A
ust
ria
Su
rvey
Au
tos,
PC
s,cl
oth
ing
,of
fice
equ
ipm
ent,
alco
hol
,fa
shio
ncl
oth
ing
,st
ereo
,d
ura
ble
con
sum
erg
ood
san
dm
ain
fram
eco
mp
ute
rs(¼
Gro
up
IV)
Neg
ativ
e
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)T
urk
ey,
Cze
chS
urv
eyN
/AN
ore
lati
onsh
ip
(con
tinued
)
Table I.A summary of previouswork on antecedents andconsequences of CET
IMR23,2
150
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Pat
riot
ism
:L
ove
for
ord
evot
ion
toon
e’s
cou
ntr
y(S
um
ner
,19
06)
Ban
nis
ter
and
Sau
nd
ers
(197
8)B
rita
inIn
terv
iew
sD
ura
ble
goo
ds
No
rela
tion
ship
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VP
osit
ive
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IP
osit
ive
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)T
urk
ey,
Cze
chS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
(par
tial
sup
por
t)
Con
serv
atis
m:
Ate
nd
ency
toch
eris
htr
adit
ion
san
dso
cial
inst
itu
tion
sth
ath
ave
surv
ived
the
test
ofti
me,
and
toin
trod
uce
chan
ges
only
occa
sion
ally
,re
luct
antl
yan
dg
rad
ual
ly(S
har
ma
etal.,
1995
)
An
der
son
and
Cu
nn
ing
ham
(197
2)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
sP
osit
ive
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IP
osit
ive
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
2)T
urk
ey,
Cze
chS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Col
lect
ivis
m:
Ate
nd
ency
tom
axim
ize
gro
up
wel
fare
even
ifit
mea
ns
that
ind
ivid
ual
goa
lssh
ould
be
sub
ord
inat
e(H
ofst
ede,
1984
)
Ett
enso
net
al.
(198
8)U
SE
xp
erim
ent
Ap
par
elit
ems
Pos
itiv
e
Nis
hin
a(1
990)
Jap
anS
urv
eyF
ood
,cl
oth
ing
,fu
rnit
ure
,h
ouse
hol
dg
ood
s,sp
orts
,g
ood
s,ca
rs,
acce
ssor
ies
(¼
Gro
up
V)
Pos
itiv
e
Str
utt
onet
al.
(199
4)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
sP
osit
ive
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IP
osit
ive
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
Consumerethnocentrism
151
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
An
imos
ity
:T
he
rem
nan
tsof
anti
pat
hy
rela
ted
toec
onom
icev
ents
that
wil
laf
fect
con
sum
ers’
pu
rch
ase
beh
avio
rin
the
inte
rnat
ion
alm
ark
etp
lace
(Kle
inet
al.,
1998
)
Kle
inet
al.
(199
8)C
hin
aM
all
inte
rcep
tsT
V,
VC
R,
ster
eo,
rad
io,
cam
era
and
refr
iger
ator
(¼
Gro
up
VI)
N/A
Mat
eria
lism
:A
cen
tral
lyh
eld
bel
ief
abou
tth
eim
por
tan
ceof
pos
sess
ion
sin
one’
sli
fe(B
elk
,19
84)
Cla
rke
etal.
(200
0)U
S,
Fra
nce
,A
ust
rali
aan
dM
exic
o
Su
rvey
N/A
Pos
itiv
e
Lis
tof
val
ues
Inte
rnal
val
ues
den
ote
the
imp
orta
nce
ofp
erso
nal
fact
ors
inv
alu
efu
lfilm
ent
wh
erea
sex
tern
alv
alu
esin
dic
ate
the
imp
orta
nce
ofim
per
son
alfa
ctor
s(K
ahle
,19
83)
Cla
rke
etal.
(200
0)U
S,
Fra
nce
,A
ust
rali
aan
dM
exic
o
Su
rvey
N/A
No
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
nin
tern
alv
alu
esan
dC
ET
Pos
itiv
ere
lati
onsh
ipb
etw
een
exte
rnal
val
ues
and
CE
T
Sal
ien
ce:
Th
eex
ten
tto
wh
ich
the
nee
dfo
rh
elp
isre
cog
niz
edas
imp
orta
nt
by
the
pot
enti
alh
elp
er(O
lsen
etal.,
1993
)
Ols
enet
al.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
rela
tion
ship (c
onti
nued
)
Table I.
IMR23,2
152
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Dog
mat
ism
:A
per
son
alit
ych
arac
teri
stic
that
vie
ws
real
ity
inb
lack
and
wh
ite
(Car
uan
a,19
96)
An
der
son
and
Cu
nn
ing
ham
(197
2)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
sP
osit
ive
Sh
imp
and
Sh
arm
a(1
987)
US
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pI
Pos
itiv
e
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Eco
nom
ican
tece
den
tsV
aria
ble
sre
late
dto
the
econ
omic
env
iron
men
tof
the
cou
ntr
yin
vol
ved
tC
apit
alis
mR
osen
bla
tt(1
964)
N/A
N/A
(th
eory
pie
ce)
N/A
Neg
ativ
ere
lati
onsh
ip
Sta
ge
ofec
onom
icd
evel
opm
ent
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
d,
Ru
ssia
Ex
per
imen
tC
loth
ing
Ear
lyst
ages
oftr
ansi
tion
from
stat
eco
ntr
olle
dto
mar
ket
econ
omy
and
dev
elop
edec
onom
ies
hav
en
egat
ive
rela
tion
ship
Inte
rmed
iate
stag
eof
tran
siti
onh
asa
pos
itiv
ere
lati
onsh
ipD
urv
asu
laet
al.
(199
7)R
uss
iaS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
rela
tion
ship
du
eto
ap
oor
dom
esti
cec
onom
yan
dan
attr
acti
onto
war
dW
este
rnp
rod
uct
sIm
pro
vin
gn
atio
nal
econ
omy
:B
elie
fth
atth
en
atio
nal
econ
omic
situ
atio
nim
pro
ved
inth
ep
ast
yea
r
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
Consumerethnocentrism
153
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Imp
rov
ing
per
son
alfi
nan
ces:
Bel
ief
that
per
son
alfi
nan
cial
situ
atio
nim
pro
ved
inth
ep
ast
yea
r
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Pol
itic
alan
tece
den
tsV
aria
ble
sre
late
dto
the
pol
itic
alen
vir
onm
ent
ofth
eco
un
try
inv
olv
edP
olit
ical
pro
pag
and
aR
osen
bla
tt(1
964)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pos
itiv
ere
lati
onsh
ipH
isto
ryof
opp
ress
ion
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
dE
xp
erim
ent
Clo
thin
gP
osit
ive
rela
tion
ship
Pro
xim
ity
,si
zean
dp
ower
ofou
t-g
rou
ps
Ros
enb
latt
(196
4)N
/AN
/AN
/AP
osit
ive
rela
tion
ship
Lea
der
man
ipu
lati
onR
osen
bla
tt(1
964)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pos
itiv
ere
lati
onsh
ipD
emog
rap
hic
ante
ced
ents
Ag
e:O
lder
vs
you
ng
erco
nsu
mer
sD
orn
off
etal.
(197
4)U
SS
urv
eyM
ech
anic
alp
rod
uct
s,fo
odp
rod
uct
s,F
ash
ion
,E
lect
ron
iceq
uip
men
t(¼
Gro
up
VII
)
Pos
itiv
e
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VP
osit
ive
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
dE
xp
erim
ent
Clo
thin
gP
osit
ive
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)T
urk
eyS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Fes
terv
and
etal.
(198
5)U
SS
urv
eyM
ech
anic
alp
rod
uct
s,fo
odp
rod
uct
s,fa
shio
n,
elec
tron
ics
and
leis
ure
pro
du
cts
(¼
Gro
up
VII
I)
No
rela
tion
ship
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IN
ore
lati
onsh
ipB
alab
anis
etal.
(200
1)C
zech
Su
rvey
N/A
No
rela
tion
ship
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
IMR23,2
154
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Sch
oole
r(1
971)
US
Inte
rvie
ws
Uti
lita
rian
pro
du
ct,
mec
han
ical
pro
du
ctan
dfa
shio
np
rod
uct
(¼
Gro
up
IX)
Neg
ativ
e
Ban
nis
ter
and
Sau
nd
ers
(197
8)B
rita
inIn
terv
iew
sD
ura
ble
goo
ds
Neg
ativ
e
Gen
der
:M
env
sw
omen
Eag
ly(1
978)
US
Lit
erat
ure
rev
iew
N/A
Wom
enm
ore
eth
noc
entr
ic
Fes
terv
and
etal.
US
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pV
III
Wom
enm
ore
eth
noc
entr
icW
all
and
Hes
lop
(198
6)C
anad
aS
urv
eyC
ars,
win
e,h
ome
ente
rtai
nm
ent,
chil
dre
n’s
clot
hin
g,
wom
en’s
clot
hin
g,
men
’scl
oth
ing
,w
omen
’ssh
oes
and
men
’ssh
oes
(¼
Gro
up
X)
Wom
enm
ore
eth
noc
entr
ic
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
How
ard
(198
9)U
SS
urv
eyS
ame
asin
Gro
up
IIW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
dE
xp
erim
ent
Clo
thin
gW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Bru
nin
g(1
997)
Can
ada
Ex
per
imen
tan
dsu
rvey
Com
mer
cial
air
trav
elW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
arti
alsu
pp
ort
for
wom
enm
ore
eth
noc
entr
icB
alab
anis
etal.
(200
1)T
urk
eyS
urv
eyN
/AW
omen
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Dor
nof
fet
al.
(197
4)U
SS
urv
eyS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VII
No
rela
tion
ship
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)R
uss
iaE
xp
erim
ent
Clo
thin
gN
ore
lati
onsh
ip
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AN
ore
lati
onsh
ipB
alab
anis
etal.
(200
1)C
zech
Su
rvey
N/A
No
rela
tion
ship
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
Consumerethnocentrism
155
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Ban
nis
ter
and
Sau
nd
ers
(197
8)B
rita
inIn
terv
iew
sD
ura
ble
goo
ds
Men
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
Ed
uca
tion
:Dif
fere
nce
sin
form
aled
uca
tion
alle
vel
sD
orn
off
etal.
(197
4)U
SS
urv
eyS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VII
Neg
ativ
e
Fes
terv
and
etal.
(198
5)U
SS
urv
eyS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VII
IN
egat
ive
Nis
hin
a(1
990)
Jap
anS
urv
eyS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VN
egat
ive
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
d,
Ru
ssia
Ex
per
imen
tC
loth
ing
Neg
ativ
e
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)T
urk
eyS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VN
ore
lati
onsh
ipB
alab
anis
etal.
(200
1)C
zech
Su
rvey
N/A
No
rela
tion
ship
Inco
me:
Dif
fere
nce
sin
inco
me
lev
els
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IN
egat
ive
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AN
ore
lati
onsh
ipK
lein
and
Ett
enso
n(1
999)
US
Su
rvey
N/A
Neg
ativ
e
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)T
urk
eyS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Bal
aban
iset
al.
(200
1)C
zech
Su
rvey
N/A
Pos
itiv
e
Goo
dan
dH
ud
dle
ston
(199
5)P
olan
dE
xp
erim
ent
Clo
thin
gN
egat
ive
Bru
nin
g(1
997)
Can
ada
Ex
per
imen
tan
dsu
rvey
Com
mer
cial
air
trav
elN
egat
ive
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
IMR23,2
156
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VN
ore
lati
onsh
ipT
anan
dF
arle
y(1
987)
Sin
gap
ore
Ex
per
imen
tF
ace
crea
m,w
omen
’scl
oth
ing
and
men
’scl
oth
ing
Pos
itiv
e
Rac
e/et
hn
icg
rou
p:
Eth
nic
dif
fere
nce
sin
mu
ltic
ult
ura
ln
atio
ns
Kle
inan
dE
tten
son
(199
9)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
ore
lati
onsh
ip
Pir
on(2
002)
Sin
gap
ore
Su
rvey
Su
per
mar
ket
pat
ron
age
No
dif
fere
nce
sam
ong
the
isla
nd
’sth
ree
maj
oret
hn
icg
rou
ps
Zar
kad
a-F
rase
ran
dF
rase
r(2
002)
Au
stra
lia
Su
rvey
Su
per
mar
ket
pat
ron
age
Min
orit
ies
iden
tify
ing
wit
ha
un
iqu
ecu
ltu
ral
gro
up
less
eth
noc
entr
icS
ocia
lcl
ass:
Sta
nd
ing
inso
ciet
y(e
du
cati
on,
inco
me
occu
pat
ion
,re
sid
ency
)
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VB
lue-
coll
arm
ore
eth
noc
entr
icth
anw
hit
e-co
llar
Car
uan
a(1
996)
Mal
taS
urv
eyN
/AR
esid
ence
typ
eh
asn
ore
lati
onsh
ipto
CE
TK
lein
and
Ett
enso
n(1
999)
US
Su
rvey
N/A
Wor
kin
gcl
ass
mor
eet
hn
ocen
tric
than
mid
dle
-cla
ssK
lein
and
Ett
enso
n(1
999)
US
Su
rvey
N/A
Un
ion
mem
ber
sm
ore
eth
noc
entr
icth
ann
on-m
emb
ers
Con
seq
uen
ces
and
defi
nit
ion
Dir
ect
Att
itu
de
tow
ard
bu
yin
gfo
reig
np
rod
uct
sG
ener
alim
pre
ssio
nto
war
dfo
reig
np
rod
uct
(Kim
and
Py
sarc
hik
,20
00)
Zar
kad
a-F
rase
ran
dF
rase
r(2
002)
Au
stra
lia
Su
rvey
Su
per
mar
ket
pat
ron
age
Neg
ativ
e
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
Consumerethnocentrism
157
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Sh
arm
aet
al.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IN
egat
ive
Pu
rch
ase
inte
nti
onIn
ten
tion
tob
uy
dom
esti
cp
rod
uct
san
dse
rvic
es
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VP
osit
ive
Her
che
(199
2)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,P
Cs
Pos
itiv
eO
lsen
etal.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Bru
nin
g(1
997)
Can
ada
Ex
per
imen
tan
dsu
rvey
Com
mer
cial
air
trav
elH
igh
erC
ET
doe
sn
otn
eces
sari
lytr
ansl
ate
top
urc
has
ein
ten
tion
Pri
ceis
mor
eim
por
tan
tK
lein
etal.
(199
8)C
hin
aM
all
inte
rcep
tsS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VI
Pos
itiv
e
Su
han
dK
won
(200
2)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Su
pp
ort
for
fore
ign
pro
du
ctA
ctiv
ism
reg
ard
ing
fore
ign
pro
du
ct(Z
ark
ada-
Fra
ser
and
Fra
ser,
2002
)
Zar
kad
a-F
rase
ran
dF
rase
r(2
002)
Au
stra
lia
Su
rvey
Su
per
mar
ket
pat
ron
age
Neg
ativ
ere
lati
onsh
ipb
etw
een
CE
Tan
dsu
pp
ort
for
fore
ign
stor
e
Th
rou
gh
med
iato
rsP
erce
ived
equ
ity
:P
erce
ived
fair
nes
sof
fore
ign
com
pet
itio
n(O
lsen
etal.,
1993
)
Ols
enet
al.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Em
pat
hy
:F
eeli
ng
sfo
rth
ein
-gro
up
(Ols
enet
al.,
1993
)
Ols
enet
al.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
IMR23,2
158
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Per
ceiv
edco
sts:
Per
son
alec
onom
icco
sts
ofb
uy
ing
dom
esti
cp
rod
uct
s(O
lsen
etal.,
1993
)
Ols
enet
al.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AN
egat
ive
Res
pon
sib
ilit
y:
Ob
lig
atio
nto
hel
pth
ein
-gro
up
(Ols
enet
al.,
1993
)
Ols
enet
al.
(199
3)U
SS
urv
eyN
/AP
osit
ive
Cou
ntr
yof
orig
in:
Ap
rod
uct
’sso
urc
eco
un
try
imag
e
Han
(198
8)U
SS
urv
eyA
uto
s,T
VP
osit
ive;
rela
tion
ship
mod
erat
edb
yp
rod
uct
imp
orta
nce
Bro
dow
sky
(199
8)U
SE
xp
erim
ent
Au
tos
Con
sum
ers
wit
hlo
wC
ET
use
CO
Ocu
esfo
rob
ject
ive
eval
uat
ion
ofp
rop
rod
uct
qu
alit
yP
rod
uct
eval
uat
ion
:M
akin
gov
eral
lju
dg
men
tsof
qu
alit
yof
fore
ign
pro
du
cts
Kle
inet
al.
(199
8)C
hin
aM
all
inte
rcep
tsS
ame
asin
Gro
up
VI
Neg
ativ
ere
lati
onsh
ip
Kle
in(2
002)
US
Su
rvey
Au
tos
Neg
ativ
ere
lati
onsh
ipK
iman
dP
ysa
rch
ik(2
000)
US
Ex
per
imen
tT
hre
eb
ran
ded
pro
du
cts
(cam
era,
TV
,sw
eate
r)N
ore
lati
onsh
ip(i
nca
seof
Kor
ean
pro
du
ctto
pos
itiv
ere
lati
onsh
ipin
case
ofJa
pan
).B
ran
dfa
mil
iart
y(N
ikon
)co
uld
mod
erat
eth
eef
fect
ofC
ET
onp
rod
uct
eval
uat
ion
Moo
nan
dJa
in(2
001)
US
Su
rvey
Ad
ver
tise
men
tsN
egat
ive
(con
tinued
)
Table I.
Consumerethnocentrism
159
Pre
vio
us
wor
kC
oun
try
Stu
dy
typ
eP
rod
uct
typ
eR
elat
ion
ship
toC
ET
Hu
dd
lest
onet
al.
(200
1)P
olan
dE
xp
erim
ent
Mea
t,ce
real
,fr
uit
and
shoe
s(n
eces
sary
)N
egat
ive
Au
to,
rad
io,
TV
and
wat
ch(n
otn
eces
sary
)S
up
ph
elle
nan
dR
itte
nb
urg
(200
1)P
olan
dS
urv
eyG
asst
atio
nb
ran
ds
Pos
itiv
ep
erce
pti
ons
ofd
omes
tic
bra
nd
sev
enw
hen
fore
ign
bra
nd
sar
ecl
earl
ysu
per
ior
Yu
and
Alb
aum
(200
2)H
ong
Kon
gS
urv
eyW
oman
’ssu
it,
furn
itu
re,
por
cela
in,m
an’s
shir
t,P
C,t
oy,
ster
lin
gsi
lver
jew
elry
,sh
oes,
leat
her
bri
efca
se
Neg
ativ
e.C
ET
isre
late
dto
pu
rch
ase
beh
avio
rth
rou
gh
pro
du
ctp
refe
ren
ces
Th
rou
gh
mod
erat
ors
Per
ceiv
edp
rod
uct
nec
essi
tyS
har
ma
etal.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IC
ET
infl
uen
ced
neg
ativ
eat
titu
des
mor
eto
war
d“u
nn
eces
sary
”fo
reig
np
rod
uct
sP
erce
ived
econ
omic
thre
atS
har
ma
etal.
(199
5)K
orea
Su
rvey
Sam
eas
inG
rou
pII
IN
egat
ive
atti
tud
esm
ore
for
pro
du
cts
per
ceiv
edas
thre
ats
toh
ome
econ
Cu
ltu
ral
sim
ilar
ity
Per
ceiv
edsi
mil
arit
yof
cult
ure
sb
ased
onv
alu
esof
exp
orti
ng
and
imp
orti
ng
cou
ntr
y(W
atso
nan
dW
rig
ht,
2000
)
Wat
son
and
Wri
gh
t(2
000)
New
Zea
lan
dS
urv
eyR
efri
ger
ator
s,T
Vs
and
cam
eras
Con
sum
ers
wit
hh
igh
CE
Tu
secu
ltu
ral
sim
ilar
ity
ofso
urc
eco
un
try
for
pro
du
ctev
alu
atio
ns
and
pro
du
ctat
titu
des
Table I.
IMR23,2
160
negative relationship between worldmindedness and CET is provided by Rawwas et al.(1996). However, Balabanis et al. (2001) did not find any significant relationshipbetween internationalism, a construct similar to worldmindedness, and CET. Besidespositing a negative relationship between worldmindedness and CET, one can alsoinvestigate the possible interaction between worldmindedness and cultural opennessand the potential role of worldmindedness as a moderator between cultural opennessand CET.
Patriotism. Sharma et al. (1995) put forward the argument that patriotism, definedas love for or devotion to one’s country, is positively related to CET. Their logic wasimported from earlier studies that dealt with ethnocentrism in general. For example,several authors contended that patriotism is not only related to ethnocentrism, but alsoacts as a defense mechanism for the in-group (Sumner, 1906; Adorno et al., 1950;Mihalyi, 1984). Empirical support for a positive relationship between patriotism andCET is provided by studies such as Han (1988), Sharma et al. (1995) and Klein andEttenson (1999). However, there is empirical evidence to the contrary. For example,Bannister and Saunders (1978, p. 565) concluded that “the patriotism of Britishrespondents does not extend, with any degree of conviction, into consumer goodsmarkets.” Even as different national governments around the world are pushingthrough trade liberalization reforms on the lines suggested by the World TradeOrganization, it would be preposterous to conclude that these national governmentsare “unpatriotic” or acting against the interests of their respective countries.
Figure 1.CET, its antecedents and
consequences
Socio-pscyhologicalAntecedents
Cultural Openness (–) World Mindedness (–) Patriotism (+) Conservatism (+)Collectivism (+)Animosity (+)Materialism (+)List of values
- External(+)- Internal (–)
Salience (+)Dogmatism (+)
DemographicAntecedents
Age (+) Gender
Income (–)Education (–)
Race Social class (–)
CET
Consumer Ethno Centrism
Mediators
Perceived equity (–)Empathy (+) Perceived cost(–) Responsibility (+)COO (–)Product evaluation (–)
ModeratorsPerceived product necessity (–) Perceived economic threat (+)Culturalsimilarity (–)
Outcomes
Attitude towardforeign product(–)
PurchaseIntention (–)
Support forforeign product(–)
Economic Antecedents
Capitalism (–)Stage of econ. Develop. Improving national econ. (–)Improving personal fin. (–)
Political Antecedents
Propaganda (+) Historyof oppression (+) Outgroup size, proximity (+)Leader manipulation (+)
Consumerethnocentrism
161
As students of international economics know quite well, free trade is not a zero sumgame but a positive one that benefits both the participants in the long run.Furthermore, one can be both patriotic and worldminded at the same time (Rawwaset al., 1996). In summary, the above discussion calls into question whether it ispatriotism or “misplaced patriotism” that acts as one of the antecedents of CET. Hence,instead of simplistically looking at the correlations between patriotism and CET, futureresearch should explore the moderating effects of education (as a proxy forunderstanding trade theory!) and worldmindedness.
Conservatism. Conservative persons are those that “show a tendency to cherishtraditions and social institutions that have survived the test of time, and to introducechanges only occasionally, reluctantly and gradually” (Sharma et al., 1995, p. 28). In itsextreme form, conservatism can manifest itself as religious intolerance, insistence onstrict rules and punishments and an anti-hedonic outlook (Wilson and Patterson, 1968in Sharma et al., 1995). Studies such as Sharma et al. (1995) and Balabanis et al. (2002)found a positive relationship between conservatism and CET. It is noteworthy that allthe three criticisms against the use of patriotism as an antecedent of CET also apply tothe use of conservatism. First, consumers may not extend their conservative beliefstowards purchase of foreign products. Second, in many countries such as the US andthe UK, conservative political parties have clamored for the promotion of free trade.Third, conservatism is not mutually exclusive of worldmindedness. Thus, theinfluence of conservatism on CET should be studied in tandem with the moderatingeffects of education and worldmindedness.
Collectivism-individualism. As collectivists consider the effect of their actions on thelarger group or the society, people with collectivistic goals “tend to reveal moreintensive ethnocentric tendencies than those with individualistic goals” (Sharma et al.,1995, p. 28). Empirical support for positive correlation between collectivism and CETcan be found in studies such as Nishina (1990) and Sharma et al. (1995). Strutton et al.(1994, p. 65) argued that individualism predisposed Americans towards substantial“open-mindedness and self-autonomy” leading them to engage in honest and criticalself-reflection with respect to domestically produced goods. This is consistent withEttenson et al.’s (1988, p. 96) report that the “Made in the USA” promotional blitzinvolving millions of dollars and “over one billion advertising impressions” had littleeffect on most Americans who preferred to go by product merits.
Animosity. Klein et al. (1998, p. 90) defined animosity as “the remnants of antipathyrelated to previous or ongoing military, political or economic events that will affectconsumers’ purchase behavior in the international marketplace.” The authorscontended that animosity, like CET, affects consumer buying decisions irrespective ofproduct judgments. However, animosity is different from CET in that it is displayedagainst specific countries rather than all foreign countries intoto. Even as the authorsacknowledged that animosity and CET can be interrelated (p. 91), they did not positany relationship between the two. It is quite possible that consumers can generalizeanimosity towards a few foreign countries to all foreign countries. Thus, futureresearch should investigate the merit of animosity as an antecedent of CET.
Materialism. Materialists tend to rely on material possessions as substitutes fortheir lack of satisfying inter-personal relationships (Rindfleisch et al., 1997) and also toenhance their sense of belonging. Belk (1984) mentioned possessiveness,non-generosity and envy as the three dimensions of materialism. Much like
IMR23,2
162
materialism, CET is also associated with envy, possessiveness, need to identify with alarger group and need to defend one’s ego (Rosenblatt, 1964). Empirical support for apositive relationship between materialism and CET is provided by Clarke et al. (2000).
List of values. The term “value” is defined as a “specific end state of existence orspecific mode of conduct that is preferred to an opposite end state or mode of conductfor living one’s life” (Kahle, 1983). Values can be categorized as internal and externalvalues. Internal values are measured by items such as “self-respect” and“self-fulfillment” whereas external values are measured by items such as “Fun andenjoyment in life,” and “Being well respected.” Clarke et al. (2000) found a positiverelationship between external values and CET. This may be because an individualseeking fun and enjoyment in life is essentially a hedonist that is outward oriented andmaterialistic in nature (Micken, 1993). As discussed earlier, materialism is positivelyassociated with CET.
Salience. One of the essential facets of CET is its perceived moral dimension. Thatis, ethnocentric consumers hold buyers of foreign products to be morally responsiblefor the plight of domestic workers that lose their jobs due to international competition.Olsen et al. (1993) viewed consumers’ cooperation in buying domestic products as aform of “helping behavior.” Salience, as defined by these authors, signifies theperceived threat to domestic workers or industries. In fact, Rosenblatt (1964) mentionedthat perception of threat to the in-group is positively related to ethnocentrism. Olsenet al. (1993) found empirical support for a positive relationship between salience andCET. Sharma et al. (1995) included the “perceived threat” variable not as an antecedentbut as a moderator in their conceptual model. The authors explained in the followingway:
When any country considers itself under attack or threatened by competition from outsiders,“foreignness” takes on negative meanings, and nationalism and ethnocentrism increase. Thefear of losing jobs (either one’s own or a related person’s) may influence consumers’ reactionsto imports (p. 29).
The authors found strong empirical support for the moderating role of “perceivedthreat” or “salience” in the relationship between CET and attitudes towards importedproducts. Whether salience is an antecedent of CET or a moderator between CET andattitudes or willingness to buy foreign products is a debatable issue even as there issufficient merit for both viewpoints.
Dogmatism. Dogmatism is defined as a personality characteristic to see the world inblack and white (Caruana, 1996). Anderson and Cunningham (1972) found lessdogmatic consumers to have more favorable attitude toward foreign products thantheir more dogmatic counterparts. Shimp and Sharma (1987) and Caruana (1996) alsoreported a significant positive relationship between dogmatism and CET.
Economic environmentSeveral studies have underscored the need to look at the economic environment as aninfluencing factor of CET. Rosenblatt (1964) suggested that capitalism would benegatively related to ethnocentrism. Schuh (1994) provided a framework that sought tolink the different stages of economic development to consumers’ preferences for foreignproducts. According to the framework, during the early stages of transition from astate controlled economy to a market economy, foreign products (Western products inparticular) will be preferred because of good quality and novelty, status and curiosity
Consumerethnocentrism
163
motives. However, as an economy moves to the intermediate stage of transition,nationalistic motives behind purchasing become dominant. When an economy is in adeveloped state characterized by a large presence of MNCs, ethnocentric purchasingbehavior tends to wane again. Good and Huddleston (1995) found support for the aboveframework in the context of Poland and Russia. Durvasula et al. (1997) also concludedthat lower CET scores for Russia was influenced by a simultaneous attraction towardforeign products and a bleak domestic economy. Klein and Ettenson (1999) found anegative relationship between beliefs of improving national economy and CET in thecontext of the US. Another finding was that belief that personal financial situationimproved in the past year resulted in reduced levels of CET.
Political environmentRosenblatt (1964) posited political propaganda as one of the antecedents ofethnocentrism. He argued that leaders can increase group ethnocentrism by raisingthe bogey of threat by out-groups. To what extent such propaganda influences CET ina society is an empirical question. It might be fruitful to look into the moderating role of“political freedom” or “democracy” in the relationship between political propagandaand CET. In other words, the issue is whether consumers belonging to democraticcountries are less likely to be swayed by political propaganda than those living inauthoritarian environments.
Besides government propaganda, political histories of different countries alsodetermine the level of CET in a society. Good and Huddleston (1995) explained higherCET scores in Poland compared to Russia by arguing that consumers belonging tocountries with a long history of oppression (such as Poland) tend to be moreethnocentric than those belonging to countries that were conquerors (such as Russia).However, it can be argued that consumers of conquering nations will tend to view the“in-group” products as more superior and preferable compared to those of conquerednations that will crave for “out-group” products. In summary, the direction of influenceof both political propaganda and political history are both empirical questions thatdeserve additional investigation. Rather than using these explanations to justifycountry differences, future research should hypothesize a priori and seek out to testthese hypotheses in multi-country situations. Two other political variables worthexploring empirically are perceived proximity, size and power of “out-groups” andleader manipulation (due to Rosenblatt, 1964).
Demographic antecedentsBoth import purchasing behavior and CET related studies have looked at thedemographics of the respondents as a separate set of antecedents. The advantage ofusing demographic antecedents lies in the opportunities of segmenting consumersaccording to their favorable and unfavorable disposition to foreign products.Hypotheses pertaining to six such antecedents, namely, age, gender, education, income,ethnicity and class are discussed below.
Age. The argument for a positive relationship between age and CET is based onincreased cosmopolitanism in recent years and its socio-cultural influence on the beliefpatterns of the youth. Even though the empirical evidence is mixed, there seems to bemore empirical support for the argument that younger people will have lower CETscores than older people (Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Caruana, 1996). It must also be
IMR23,2
164
mentioned that some studies did not find any statistically significant relationshipbetween age and CET (Sharma et al., 1995; Festervand et al., 1985) and other olderstudies in fact found a positive relationship between age and favorable foreign productevaluation (Schooler, 1971; Bannister and Saunders, 1978).
Gender. An overwhelming body of evidence supports the proposition that womenhave higher ethnocentric scores than men (Bruning, 1997; Sharma et al., 1995). Theunderlying logic is that women are more conservative, conformist (Eagly, 1978; Han,1988) and collectivistic concerned about maintaining social harmony and positivefeelings among group members (Triandis et al., 1985). However, there are some studiesthat found no significant gender differences (Caruana, 1996) and other studies thatfound men to be more ethnocentric than women (Bannister and Saunders, 1978).
Education. But for a few exceptions, the findings on the relationship betweeneducation levels and CET have almost been consistent pointing to a negativerelationship (Klein and Ettenson, 1999; Caruana, 1996). The underlying rationale is thatmore educated people are less likely to have ethnic prejudices (Watson and Johnson,1972) and tend to be less conservative (Ray, 1990). However, studies such as Han (1988)did not find education to be a significant factor in explaining consumer patriotism.
Income. A majority of studies (Sharma et al., 1995; Bruning, 1997) point to a negativecorrelation between income levels and CET. Increased income levels provide moreopportunities for travel and purchase of foreign products thus resulting in morecosmopolitan views (Sharma et al., 1995). However, some studies (Han, 1988) found noincome effects and other studies (Tan and Farley, 1987) reported a positive relationshipbetween income and CET.
Race/ethnic group. In multi-cultural nations, research questions have been raisedregarding inter-ethnic group differences in CET, especially between the dominantmajority culture and the different non-dominant minority sub-cultures. The empiricalevidence is mixed. Studies such as Piron (2002) and Klein and Ettenson (1999) did notfind race as a significant predictor of CET. However, studies such as Cottingham andMorris (1991) and Zarkada-Fraser and Fraser (2002) found minorities to be morefavorable to foreign products than the majority ethnic group.
Social class. To the extent social class is correlated with income, one can extend theconclusions regarding income and CET to social class. That is, one can hypothesizethat ethnocentric tendencies tend to fall as consumers move up the social ladder.Studies such as Han (1988) and Klein and Ettenson (1999) found support for the abovehypothesis. However, studies such as Caruana (1996) did not find any class differencesin CET scores.
Consequences of consumer ethnocentrismThe primary outcome of interest is whether CET leads to the purchase of domesticproducts as opposed to foreign products. Researchers have used different constructssuch as “purchase intention” (Han, 1988), “attitudes towards buying foreign products”(Sharma et al., 1995), “willingness to buy domestic products” (Olsen et al., 1993) and“willingness to buy foreign products” (Klein et al., 1998). In this section, therelationships between CET and outcome variables (both attitude and intention) areexamined along with the effects of relevant moderator and mediator variables.
Consumerethnocentrism
165
Direct consequencesCET resulted in negative attitudes against foreign products in studies such asSharma et al. (1995) and Zarkada-Fraser and Fraser (2002). Empirical support for apositive relationship between CET and purchase intention of domestic products isfound in studies such as Han (1988) and Herche (1992). Studies such as Klein et al.(1998) and Suh and Kwon (2002) also found strong statistical evidence for the directnegative link between CET and willingness to buy foreign products. Zarkada-Fraserand Fraser (2002) also found a negative relationship between CET and support forforeign retail outlets. However, Bruning (1997) found that buying domestic rankedsecond to price considerations even among Canadian air travelers with higherethnocentric scores.
Consequences through mediatorsOlsen et al. (1993) offered perceived equity, empathy, costs and responsibility aspossible mediators between CET and willingness to buy imported products. Consumerethnonationalism was posited to negatively influence perceived equity. The logic wasthat ethnocentric consumers will perceive international competition as being unfair todomestic industries. This decrease in perceived equity will then influence consumers tobuy domestic products as opposed to foreign products. Empathy is defined as “theability to understand how a situation appears to another person and how that person isreacting cognitively and emotionally to the situation” (p. 310). Consumerethnonationalism was posited to positively influence empathic feelings for otherpersons that are perceived to be similar to the consumer. This relationship is similar toRosenblatt’s (1964) hypothesis that increased ethnocentrism will increase in-groupsolidarity. This increased empathy to the in-group will then increase the willingness tobuy domestic products. Olsen et al. (1993) also proposed that greater ethnonationalidentity would decrease the perceived costs of helping the in-group. In other words,ethnocentric consumers will tend to disregard the personal economic costs of buying adomestic product. This reasoning is consistent with one of the important properties ofCET, namely, its price-inelastic nature. Responsibility is defined as the “acceptance ofan obligation to alleviate the distressful situation” (p. 310). Olsen et al. (1993) explainedthat as perceived equity decreases, consumers’ perceived responsibility increasesleading them to exhibit willingness to buy domestic products. The authors’ empiricalstudy using a large American sample broadly supported the roles of theabove-described mediating variables.
Besides Olsen et al.’s (1993) list of mediators, there is another important mediatornamely that of “Country of Origin (COO)” effect. Han (1988) included country image asa mediator between consumer patriotism and purchase intention. On the basis of anempirical study involving US consumers, he concluded that consumer patriotismaffected country image but the relationship was moderated by the importance of theproduct. Specifically, the relationship bolstered in the case of automobiles butweakened in the case of televisions. In his comprehensive literature review of “Countryof Origin effects (COO),” Samiee (1994) included CET as one of the antecedents of COOalong with several other antecedents such as a country’s level of economicdevelopment and product class attributes. Brodowsky (1998) found evidence for CETto be an antecedent of COO. The author found that low ethnocentric consumers usedCOO cues for objective evaluation of product features. However, the empirical results
IMR23,2
166
regarding the relationship between country image and purchase intention itself havebeen inconsistent at large. Some studies have found no effect of COO on purchaseintention (Han, 1988) while others have found strong effects (Bannister and Saunders,1978). Thus, CET which is basically an affective and normative construct may in turnlead to COO evaluation which is essentially a cognitive construct.
Shimp and Sharma (1987) contended that CET is associated with adversejudgments of foreign product quality. Empirical support for the mediating effect ofadverse foreign product evaluation can be found in studies such as Klein et al. (1998),Klein (2002) and Yu and Albaum (2002). However, studying US consumers, Kim andPysarchik (2000) did not find any relationship between CET and evaluations of foreignproduct quality with respect to Korean products. The authors in fact found a positiverelationship between CET and product judgment with respect to Japanese cameras.The authors explained that this could be because of the high brand familiarity ofJapanese cameras and suggested a moderating role for brand familiarity in therelationship between CET and product judgments.
Consequences through moderatorsSharma et al. (1995) posited two moderating factors between CET and consumerattitudes towards foreign products. These are perceived product necessity andperceived economic threat. Perceived product necessity is the extent to whichconsumers think that a foreign product is indispensable due to its absolute necessity(p. 29). The authors hypothesized that the effect of CET on attitudes towards foreignproducts should be relatively stronger (in the negative direction) for products perceivedas unnecessary. The above hypothesis was also supported in their Korean sample. Theconcept of perceived economic threat is the same as “salience” discussed earlier exceptthat it was used as a moderator by Sharma et al. The authors also found significantsupport for the moderating effects of perceived threat. In other words, CET influencedattitudes mainly for products that were perceived to be a threat to the individual or thedomestic economy. Watson and Wright (2000) examined the moderating effect ofcultural similarity on the relationship between CET and product evaluations and foundsignificant support in the context of New Zealand consumers.
ConclusionsIn this paper, a thorough review of the antecedents and consequences of CET wasprovided along with an integrative framework. Several suggestions for future researchwere also provided along the way during the discussion of individual antecedents andconsequences. Academics can also draw broad research directions from the integrativereview and framework. First, there is a dearth of studies when it comes to measuringCET in services. Services trade is increasing by leaps and bounds due to proliferationof broad band technology and the internet. It would be interesting to measure CET inthe context of outsourced call centers and customer service centers.
Second, more research has to be done about ethnocentrism in governmentprocurement of goods and services and how it could be overcome. It is noteworthy thatCET can be institutionalized in the form of a “buy local” government purchase policy.For example, for years before the formation of European Union, European nations hadlocal procurement policies and government contracts were almost always awarded tolocal firms. Research is needed on the cost effectiveness of joint ventures and foreign
Consumerethnocentrism
167
direct investment as approaches to overcome ethnocentrism in governmentprocurement.
Third, more research is called for regarding overcoming CET and the liability offoreignness. Shimp and Sharma (1987) and Olsen et al. (1993) suggested that domesticmarketing managers should take advantage of prevalent ethnocentric tendencies bypromoting the “native” image so that international competitors can be held at bay.Even as small domestic companies can adopt this strategy, large domesticmultinationals will have a problem. Pitching for nationalism in the home base andsimultaneously fighting nationalism in foreign country segments can createinconsistencies in large domestic multinationals. Such tactics may not workintoday’s age of intensive communication between countries. More research isneeded to explore the effectiveness or lack thereof of these strategies. Academics needto also examine whether communicating the international interdependence aspects atthe micro-level is more effective in reducing CET than attempting to completelyintegrate the foreign company with the host country by presenting one’s products as“native.” As new vistas emerge for furthering international trade in goods and services,this paper provides a timely review and an integrative framework of existing researchon CET, its antecedents and consequences. This paper contributes to the marketingdiscipline both by integrating a wide body of research on an important internationalmarketing topic and by offering broad avenues for further research.
References
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. (1950), The AuthoritarianPersonality, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Anderson, W.T. and Cunningham, W.H. (1972), “Gauging foreign product promotion”, Journal ofAdvertising Research, February, pp. 29-34.
Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001), “The impact ofnationalism, patriotism and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies”,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 157-75.
Balabanis, G., Mueller, R. and Melewar, T.C. (2002), “The relationship between consumerethnocentrism and human values”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 15 Nos 3/4,p. 7.
Bannister, J.P. and Saunders, J.A. (1978), “UK consumers’ attitudes towards imports: themeasurement of national stereotype image”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 12,pp. 562-70.
Belk, R.W. (1984), “Three scales to measure constructs related to materialism: reliability,validity, and relationships to measures of happiness”, in Kinnear, T. (Ed.), Advances inConsumer Research, Vol. 11, The Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT,pp. 291-7.
Berkowitz, L. (1962), Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Brodowsky, G.H. (1998), “The effects of country of design and country of assembly on evaluativebeliefs about automobiles and attitudes toward buying them: a comparison between lowand high ethnocentric consumers”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 10No. 3, pp. 85-113.
Bruning, E.R. (1997), “Country of origin, national loyalty and product choice: the case ofinternational air travel”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 59.
IMR23,2
168
Caruana, A. (1996), “The effects of dogmatism and social class variables on consumerethnocentrism in Malta”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14 No. 4, p. 39.
Clarke, I., Shankarmahesh, M.N. and Ford, J.B. (2000), “Consumer ethnocentrism, materialismand values: a four country study”, AMA Winter Educators’ Conference Proceedings, SanAntonio, TX.
Cottingham, P.L. and Morris, M. (1991), “Considering Japan: how black Americans view theJapanese”, Survey Report of the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
Crawford, J.C. and Lamb, C.W. Jr (1981), “Source preferences for imported products”, Journal ofPurchasing & Materials Management, Winter, pp. 28-33.
Dornoff, R.J., Tankersley, C.B. and White, G.P. (1974), “Consumers’ perceptions of imports”,Akron Business and Economic Review, Summer, pp. 26-9.
Durvasula, S., Andrews, C.J. and Netemeyer, R.G. (1997), “A cross-cultural comparison ofconsumer ethnocentrism in the United States and Russia”, Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 73-93.
Eagly, A.H. (1978), “Sex differences in influenceability”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 85 No. 1,pp. 86-116.
Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988), “Evaluating the effect of country of origin and the‘Made in the USA’ campaign: a conjoint approach”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1,pp. 85-100.
Festervand, T.A. and Sokoya, S.K. (1994), “Consumer ethnocentrism in a developing economy: apreliminary investigation”, The International Executive, Vol. 36 No. 1, p. 95.
Festervand, T.A., Lumpkin, J.R. and Lundstrom, W.J. (1985), “Consumer perceptions of imports:an update and extension”, Akron Business and Economic Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 31-6.
Gomberg, P. (1994), “Universalism and optimism”, Ethics, Vol. 104, pp. 536-57.
Good, L.K. and Huddleston, P. (1995), “Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian consumers: arefeelings and intentions related?”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 35-48.
Han, C.M. (1988), “The role of consumer patriotism in the choice of domestic versus foreignproducts”, Journal of Advertising Research, June/July, pp. 25-32.
Herche, J. (1992), “A note on the predictive validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 261-4.
Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Howard, D.G. (1989), “Understanding how American consumers formulate their attitudes aboutforeign products”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 7-24.
Huddleston, P., Good, L.K. and Stoel, L. (2001), “Consumer ethnocentrism, product necessity andPolish consumers’ perceptions of quality”, International Journal of Retail & DistributionManagement, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 236-46.
Hult, G.T.M., Keillor, B.D. and Lafferty, B.A. (1999), “A cross-national assessment of socialdesirability bias and consumer ethnocentrism”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 12 No. 4,pp. 29-43.
Jeannet, J-P. and Hennesy, H.D. (1995), Global Marketing Strategies, 3rd ed., Houghton Mifflin,Boston, MA.
Kahle, L. (1983), “Social values in the eighties: a special issue”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 2,pp. 231-7.
Consumerethnocentrism
169
Kim, S. and Pysarchik, D.T. (2000), “Predicting purchase intentions for uni-national andbi-national products”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 28No. 6, p. 280.
Klein, J.G. (2002), “Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer a version toforeign goods”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 345-63.
Klein, J.G. and Ettenson, R. (1999), “Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: ananalysis of unique antecedents”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 11No. 4, p. 5.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M. (1998), “The animosity model of foreign product purchase:an empirical test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 1,pp. 89-100.
Kotabe, M. and Helsen, K. (1998), Global Marketing Management, Wiley, New York, NY.
Levine, R.A. and Campbell, D.T. (1972), Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes,and Group Behavior, Wiley, New York, NY.
Lewis, I.M. (1976), Social Anthropology in Perspective, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Luque-Martinez, T., Ibanez-Zapata, J-A. and del Barrio-Garcia, S. (2000), “Consumerethnocentrism measurement – an assessment of reliability and validity of theCETSCALE in Spain”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 11/12, p. 1353.
Lynn, R. (1976), “The sociobiology of nationalism”, New Society, July, pp. 11-14.
Micken, K.S. (1993), “Materialism and the self”, doctoral dissertation, Old Dominion University,Norfolk, VA.
Mihalyi, L.J. (1984), “Ethnocentrism vs nationalism: origin and fundamental aspects of amajor problem for the future”, Homboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 12 No. 1,pp. 95-113.
Moon, B.J. and Jain, S.C. (2001), “Consumer processing of international advertising: the roles ofcountry of origin and consumer ethnocentrism”, Journal of International ConsumerMarketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, p. 89.
Murdock, G.P. (1931), “Ethnocentrism”, in Seligman, E.R.A. (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of the SocialSciences, Macmillan, New York, NY, pp. 613-4.
Nishina, S. (1990), “Japanese consumers: introducing foreign products/brands into the Japanesemarket”, Journal of Advertising Research, April/May, pp. 35-45.
Olsen, J.E., Granzin, K.L. and Biswas, A. (1993), “Influencing consumers’ selection ofdomestic versus imported products: implications for marketing based on a model ofhelping behavior”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 21 No. 4,pp. 307-21.
Piron, F. (2002), “International outshopping and ethnocentrism”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 36 Nos 1/2, p. 189.
Porter, M.E. (1986), Competition in Global Industries, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Rawwas, M.Y.A., Rajendran, K.N. and Wuehrer, G.A. (1996), “The influence of worldmindednessand nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products”, InternationalMarketing Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 20-38.
Ray, J.J. (1990), “Racism, conservatism and social class in Australia: with German, Californianand South African comparisons”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 11 No. 2,pp. 187-9.
Reirson, C. (1966), “Are foreign products seen as national stereotypes?”, Journal of Retailing,Vol. 42, pp. 33-40.
IMR23,2
170
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J.E. and Denton, F. (1997), “Family structure, materialism, andcompulsive consumption”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 312-25.
Rosenblatt, P.C. (1964), “Origins and effects of group ethnocentrism and nationalism”, Journal ofConflict Resolution, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 131-46.
Samiee, S. (1994), “Customer evaluation of products in a global market”, Journal of InternationalBusiness Studies, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 579-604.
Sampson, D.L. and Smith, H.P. (1957), “A scale to measure worldminded attitudes”, The Journalof Social Psychology, Vol. 45, pp. 99-106.
Schooler, R.D. (1971), “Bias phenomena attendant to the marketing of foreign goods in the US”,Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 71-80.
Schuh, A. (1994), “Marketing in East Central Europe: an evolutionary framework for marketingstrategy development”, paper presented at Conference on Marketing Strategies for Centraland Eastern Europe, Vienna.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T.A. and Shin, J. (1995), “Consumer ethnocentrism: a test of antecedents andmoderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Shimp, T.A. and Sharma, S. (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of theCETSCALE”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, pp. 280-9.
Skinner, G.W. (1959), “The nature of loyalties in rural Indonesia”, in Skinner, G.W. (Ed.), Local,Ethnic, and National Loyalties in Village Indonesia, Yale University, New Haven, CT,pp. 1-11.
Skinner, K.A. (1988), “Internationalism and the early years of the Japanese peace corps”,International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 12, pp. 317-26.
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E. and Lumpkin, J.R. (1994), “Internal and external country of originstereotypes in the global marketplace: effects and implications for the domestic promotionof US automobiles”, Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 61-77.
Suh, T. and Kwon, I-W.G. (2002), “Globalization and reluctant buyers”, International MarketingReview, Vol. 19 No. 6, p. 663.
Sumner, W.G. (1906), Folkways: The Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs,Mores, and Morals, Ginn & Co., New York, NY.
Supphellen, M. and Rittenburg, T.L. (2001), “Consumer ethnocentrism when foreign products arebetter”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 9, p. 907.
Tan, C.T. and Farley, J.U. (1987), “The impact of cultural patterns on cognition and intention inSingapore”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, pp. 540-4.
Triandis, H.C., Leung, K., Villareal, M.J. and Clack, F.L. (1985), “Allocentric versus idiocentrictendencies: convergent and discriminant validation”, Journal of Research in Personality,Vol. 19, pp. 395-415.
Wall, M. and Heslop, L.A. (1986), “Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus importedproducts”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 14, pp. 27-36.
Watson, G. and Johnson, D. (1972), Social Psychology: Issues and Insights, J.B. Lippincott,New York, NY.
Watson, J.J. and Wright, K. (2000), “Consumer ethnocentrism and attitude toward domestic andforeign products”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 9/10, p. 1149.
Wilson, G.D. and Patterson, J.R. (1968), “A new measurement of conservatism”, British Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 264-9.
Wirth, L. (1936), “Types of nationalism”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 41, pp. 723-37.
Consumerethnocentrism
171
Yu, J.H. and Albaum, G. (2002), “Sovereignty change influences on consumer ethnocentrism andproduct preferences: Hong Kong revisited one year later”, Journal of Business Research,Vol. 55 No. 11, p. 891.
Zarkada-Fraser, A. and Fraser, C. (2002), “Store patronage prediction for foreign-ownedsupermarkets”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 30 No. 6,pp. 282-99.
Corresponding authorMahesh N. Shankarmahesh can be contacted at: [email protected]
IMR23,2
172
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.