CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Ah Keng Kau and Kwon Jung

National University of Singapore and

KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Korea

January 2004

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

ABSTRACT

Culture is a powerful force in regulating human behavior. Although many researchers

have sought to understand the influence of culture on consumer behavior, most of their

attempts were made in a piecemeal basis (i.e. examining effects of certain aspect of culture

on a specific aspect of consumer behavior). Relatively little attempt has been made to

develop a general framework of cultural influence on consumer behavior that examines

effects of various aspects of culture on various aspects of consumer behaviors at the same

time.

In this study, conceptual relationships pertaining to cultural effects on consumer

behavior are explored based on Hofstede’s (1980) four dimensions of cultural differences.

Various aspects of consumer behaviors are identified and linked to each of the four cultural

dimensions, and then propositions which relate the cultural dimensions to the consumer

behaviors are developed based on the reviews of their relationships

ii

CULTURE’S CONSEQUENCES ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

INTRODUCTION

Culture is a powerful force in regulating human behavior (Schiffman and Kanuk

1997). Its impact is so natural and automatic that its influence on behavior is usually taken

for granted. Often, it is only when we are exposed to people with different cultural values or

customs that we become aware of how culture has moulded our own behavior. Precisely

because it shapes behavior, the understanding of culture is crucial when it comes to consumer

marketing. The recognition of its importance has led to an increasing amount of research

across cultures (Sojka and Tansuhaj 1995). More significantly, many studies have succeeded

in establishing links between culture and consumer behavior (McCracken 1986). A study by

Wallace (1965) associates consumer behavior directly with culture. He believes that culture

is the all-encompassing force which forms personality, which in turn is the key determinant

of consumer behavior.

Numerous cross-cultural studies have been conducted in the past. The main objective

of most of these studies was to make comparisons of behavior between cultures (Marshall

1996). In these studies, differences were found in consumption patterns between people of

various ethnic groups (e.g. Saegert, Hoover and Hilger 1985) and various geographic

subgroups that hold differing cultural values (e.g. Gentry, Tansuhaj, Manzer and John 1988).

For instance, researchers have found differences in consumer behavior aspects such as brand

loyalty (Saegert, Hoover and Hilger 1985), decision making (Doran 1994), novelty seeking

and perceived risk (Gentry, Tansuhaj, Manzer and John 1988) across subcultures.

Although many researchers have sought to understand the influence of culture on

consumer behavior, most of their attempts were made in a piecemeal basis (i.e. examining

effects of certain aspect of culture on a specific aspect of consumer behavior). Relatively

1

little attempt has been made to develop a general framework of cultural influence on

consumer behavior that examines effects of various aspects of culture on various aspects of

consumer behaviors at the same time. With so much emphasis on cultural studies, it is

surprising to note that there is a lack of research that integrates various cultural effects on

consumer behaviors. This study aims to achieve such integration.

In this study, conceptual relationships pertaining to cultural effects on consumer

behavior are explored based on Hofstede’s (1980) four dimensions of cultural differences.

Various aspects of consumer behaviors are identified and linked to each of the four cultural

dimensions. Then, propositions which relate the cultural dimensions to the consumer

behaviors are developed based on the reviews of their relationships. This paper concludes

with the discussion of implications and future research directions.

HOFSTEDE’S CULTURAL DIMENSIONS AND ASSOCIATED CONSUMER

BEHAVIORS

Past cross-cultural studies have mainly used value instruments in assessing the

attitudes of respondents. Examples include the Rokeach Value Survey, the List of Values

(LOV), and the Values and Lifestyles (VALS 2) (e.g. Kahle, Beatty and Homer 1989; Mager

and Wynd 1993). Other methods are the use of focus groups, content analyses and field

observations (e.g. Gregory and Munch 1997). In this study, there is a need to use a tried-and-

tested model of culture so to establish more accurately the influence of culture on consumer

behavior.

In a study that made a tremendous impact on the research field, Hofstede (1980)

conducted a massive study of IBM employees across forty countries, and came up with four

cultural dimensions that effectively segmented these employees from various countries

according to the way they behave in the work situation. These four dimensions are

2

individualism-collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity-femininity and power

distance.

Researchers have since used these results by Hofstede in areas other than the

organisation-work context (e.g. Lynn, Zinkhan and Harris 1993; Nakata and Sivakumar

1996). The issue of individualism-collectivism has especially garnered much interest (Kim et

al. 1994), and has been tried and tested in various situations among people across cultures

(e.g. Yamaguchi 1994; Triandis et al. 1986; Matsumoto, Kudoh and Takeuchi 1996).

There is reason to believe that Hofstede’s model can be used in assessing differences

among consumption behaviors. This is because different cultural values, customs, as well as

religious beliefs can be adequately captured by the dimensions named in Hofstede’s model.

Individualism-Collectivism and Its Effects on Consumer Behaviors

This refers to “the relationship between the individual and the collectivity that

prevails in a given society” (Hofstede 1980). It is reflected in the way people live together,

and is intimately linked to societal norms (Hofstede 1980). Individualism pertains to societies

where ties between people are loose, and everyone is expected only to look after himself or

herself and his or her immediate family. Collectivism on the other hand, refers to societies in

which people are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s

lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede 1991).

There are value implications involved here. For example, in some cultures, individualism is

widely accepted and seen as a blessing, while in other cultures, they regard individualism as

alienating and as a character flaw. The focal issue involved here is the element of self concept,

and this differs across Western and Asian cultures (Hofstede 1980). For instance, the Chinese

have a word ren for “man” to describe a “human constant”. This refers to the individual

himself, and his societal and cultural surroundings which make his existence meaningful. In

3

society, this affects not only people’s mental programming, but also the structure and

functioning of institutions such as the family, religious and political aspects.

The consumer behaviors associated with the cultural dimension of individualism-

collectivism are all pertaining to the behavior of people in groups, their relationships with

others and their perceptions of themselves in relation to others. These consumer behaviors are

reference group influence, information sharing, self concept, family orientation, opinion

leadership and ethnocentrism.

Reference Groups

Park and Lessig (1977) defined a reference group to be an actual or imaginary

individual or group conceived of having significant relevance upon an individual’s

evaluations, aspirations or behavior. There are three ways reference groups can influence

behavior – informational, value expressive and utilitarian (Park and Lessig 1977). Reference

groups have also been defined as groups which the individual takes as a frame of reference

for self-evaluation and attitude formation (Witt 1970).

According to Gregory and Munch (1996), individuals in a collectivist culture feel that

it is important to conform to the goals of a collective ingroup such as the family, tribe or

religious group. In addition, people who are of a collectivist culture participate in more group

activities, are more concerned with the interests of the ingroup, and feel a greater need to

conform to ingroup opinions (Hui and Triandis 1986).

As the extent of reference group influence depends on group identity and behavior,

there exists the possibility that the cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism plays a

role in interpersonal influence in consumption behavior. Shaw (1971) studied the effects of

communications and individual interactions on group cohesiveness and found that the greater

the group cohesiveness, the more influence reference groups have in consumption behavior.

In other words, people in a collectivist culture want to belong and want to conform to an

4

ingroup. And because of this need, they are correspondingly more inclined to be influenced

by members of the same ingroup.

In a study by Childers and Rao (1992), the influence of the family on individuals’

product and brand decisions in the United States (an individualistic country), and Thailand (a

collectivist country) was examined. It was found that the influence of referents other than

family members was relatively less powerful in extended families (in Thailand) compared to

nuclear families (in the United States). For instance in Thailand, the relatively larger number

and variety of family members such as uncles, aunts and cousins creates a family-based

identity and thus reduces peer influence. This supports the suggestion that a collectivist

country will be more influenced by members of the ingroup, in this case the extended family.

In a study on Hispanic ethnic identification on reference group influence conducted

by Webster and Faircloth III (1994), it was found that people who identified strongly with

their ethnic roots were significantly more likely to be subject to utilitarian or value-

expressive influence. They also had a higher tendency to be influenced by the expectations of

close acquaintances and family members in brand selection. In other words, they were more

influenced by people they considered as members of their ingroup.

Hence, it can be seen that people in a collectivist culture have a greater need to

conform to the opinions and expectations of the members of their ingroup. A greater group

identity or a more cohesive group allows for a greater influence by group members on an

individual’s product choices and buying decisions. Therefore, the following proposition is

presented:

Proposition 1: People from cultures that are high on individualism are less likely to be influenced by reference groups than those from cultures that are high on collectivism.

5

Information Sharing

Information sharing is defined as the extent with which individuals transmit

information to others about consumption domains (Hirschman 1983). It looks at the degree to

which individuals share information or involve the people around them in their search for

information on consumption and buying behavior. It is also dependent upon social ties and

social influence. People in a closely-knit group will be more inclined to share information

with the people around them as compared to those who are individualistic.

Hirschman (1981) conducted a study on Jewish ethnicity and information seeking and

processing. In the study, it was suggested that a person of Jewish ethnicity would exert a

stronger effect on a fellow Jew’s behavior compared to the non-Jews. This is because a Jew is

thought to be born into a culture and religion, and is therefore expected to adhere to the

ethnic dimensions. Because of this common identity, they are more collectivistic than non-

Jews. It was found that the Jewish subjects indeed differed significantly from non-Jewish

subjects in information seeking, product information transfer and cognitive characteristics

relevant to consumption information processing. This is consistent with the premise that

culture is one of the determinant factors in information sharing. Similarly, Webster (1992)

concluded that ethnic identification, which resulted in a more collective identity, had a

significant effect on information search patterns as the respondents sought the advice of

family members and other members of the ingroup before they made any purchases.

Therefore, information sharing is a consumer behavior that differs across cultures,

depending on the propensity to share such information. And a more collective group, which

values ties within the ingroup, will result in individuals who are more inclined to use people

from within the group as their information sources compared to individualistic people, who

do not seek information from the people around them that frequently. Thus, the following

proposition is formulated:

6

Proposition 2: People from cultures that are high on individualism are less likely to engage in information sharing with the people around them than those from cultures that are high on collectivism.

Self Concept

Self concept can be defined as a cognitive appraisal of the attributes about oneself

(Hattie 1992), and it both mediates and regulates behavior. In an individualistic culture, the

emphasis is on self orientation and identity is based on the individual (Hofstede 1980). In a

collectivist culture, the orientation is on collectivity and identity is derived from the social

system (Hofstede 1980).

Research has shown that there are two construes of the self that can be identified in

people. In Western societies, the independent self concept is predominant (Abe, Bagozzi and

Sadarangani 1996), and inferences of identity are usually based on individual characteristics

such as age, occupation, behavior and material symbols of status (Belk 1984a). This is

characterised by an emphasis on personal goals and achievement (Abe, Bagozzi and

Sadarangani 1996). Hence, people with the independent self concept tend to see themselves

as distinct individuals.

The other construct is the interdependent self concept. This is commonly found in

non-Western cultures (Abe, Bagozzi and Sadarangani 1996). This idea of self concept

involves inferences that are based on group characteristics such as family background, and

national historical achievements. The concept of interdependent self is shaped mainly by the

fact that people are part of a cohesive whole, family, clan or nation (Belk 1984a). It was

found that the interdependent self concept is characterised by greater emphasis on group

goals, fitting in with others, and understanding others. Such people tend to be obedient,

sociocentric, and relation oriented (Abe, Bagozzi and Sadarangani 1996). For instance, the

7

Japanese conceptualisations of the self were more integrated and less distinct compared to the

Americans (Abe, Bagozzi and Sadarangani 1996).

The main aspect is the definition of the self in different cultures. This involves the

degree of distinction of the self – whether people in a particular culture see themselves as an

integrated whole or as distinct individuals. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 3: People from cultures that are high on collectivism are more likely to see themselves as part of an integrated whole and less as distinct individuals than those from cultures high on individualism.

Family Orientation

As a sense of belonging and maintenance of good relationships with others commands

an important role in a collectivist society, it can be seen that family orientation is a critical

aspect of collectivism. In an individualistic culture, people have a self identity rather than

identity that is developed from the social system (Hofstede 1980). Correspondingly, they will

rank lower when it comes to family orientation.

This is evident from research on lifestyle aspects. Tai and Tam (1997) found that

women in Taiwan and China were significantly more family oriented than women from Hong

Kong. This was attributed to the fact that Taiwanese and Chinese women were more

influenced by Confucianism than women in Hong Kong. As a result, their philosophy of

living emphasised the family system, and they had a strong sense of family responsibility. On

the other hand, Hong Kong women were fully exposed to the Western culture and this

resulted in them being more individualistic and less family oriented.

In another study by Lee and Ro Um (1992), it was found that the major difference

between Koreans and Americans in their evaluations of product attributes was the different

weights each put on the importance of the family. Koreans tended to be more family oriented

in their product evaluations than the Americans. This meant that the products were selected

8

according to their family’s needs, rather than their own personal wants. It was suggested that

the discriminating variable of individualism versus collectivism was the factor that accounted

for this difference.

Hence, it can be concluded that a culture that places emphasis on relationships with

others and on the sense of belonging will also place greater importance on family ties, and

this will be manifested in their consumption patterns. Thus, the following proposition is

presented:

Proposition 4: People from cultures that are high on collectivism are likely to be more family oriented than those from cultures that are high on individualism.

Opinion Leadership

This refers to the tendency of individuals to influence the attitudes and purchasing

choices of others (Schiffman and Kanuk 1997). The strength of the relationships between

individuals is the key motivation in an opinion leadership process as the opinion leader has

nothing to gain from sharing the information. It thus implies that people in a closely-knit

community will be more willing to share their opinions with others in the same group.

Ownbey and Horridge (1997) found that there was a significant difference in

shopping opinion leadership between high and low acculturated Chinese- and Filipino-

Americans in America. This was attributed to the fact that Asians typically value family,

group and clan relationships (Yau 1988). As a result, they tend to share consumer advice with

people in their ingroup. As they become acculturated in a country like America, they adopt

some of the individualistic values, and ties within the ingroup become less important. Thus,

they are less inclined to give shopping advice and suggestions to others (Ownbey and

Horridge 1997). Therefore, the following proposition is developed:

Proposition 5: People from cultures that are high on individualism are less likely to be opinion leaders than those from cultures that are high on collectivism.

9

Ethnocentrism

The concept of ethnocentrism represents the universal propensity for people to view

their own group as the center of the universe, to elucidate other social units from the

perspective of their own group, and to reject people who are culturally dissimilar while

blindly accepting those who are culturally like themselves (Booth 1979; Worchel and Cooper

1979).

In other words, ethnocentrism is a system whereby people distinguish between social

ingroups with which they identify and out-groups which they regard as very different (Shimp

and Sharma 1987). Therefore, ethnocentrism gives an individual a sense of identity and

feelings of belongingness. Thus it can be suggested that a collectivist culture, which places a

greater emphasis on group identity and “we” consciousness will show a greater tendency of

ethnocentrism. Hence, the following proposition is formulated:

Proposition 6: People from cultures that are high on collectivism are more likely to exhibit ethnocentric behaviors than those from cultures that are high on individualism.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Its Effects on Consumer Behaviors

A basic fact of human life is the uncertainty regarding the future and the means and

ways through which human beings try to cope with this uncertainty using technology, law

and religion. But we will always face an uncertain future and we are conscious of it.

Furthermore, as extreme uncertainty causes anxiety and stress, society has to develop ways to

cope with living on the brink of an uncertain future. Technology, law and religion thus

become the means through which we defend ourselves against this prevailing uncertainty

(Hofstede 1980).

Uncertainty avoidance can be defined as the extent to which the members of a culture

feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations (Hofstede 1991). It also addresses the

10

methods in which society tackles unknown aspects of the future. Different societies and

cultures deal with uncertainty in different ways, and these are transferred and reinforced

through institutions such as the state, the school and the family. And they are reflected in the

collectively held values of the people in each particular society. For instance, technology,

rules and rituals are some of the ways of coping with uncertainty in organisations.

One of the main concepts behind uncertainty avoidance is the ability to tolerate risk.

Therefore, when identifying the consumer behaviors related to uncertainty avoidance, it is

necessary to determine those with an element of risk or uncertainty involved as these will be

the behaviors most affected. Hence, the consumer behaviors discussed below are perceived

risk, brand loyalty, innovativeness and information search.

Perceived Risk

The concept of perceived risk has been defined as consumers’ perceptions of the

uncertainty and the adverse consequences of buying a product or service (Dowling and

Staelin 1994). In making purchase decisions, risk is involved because all consumers have

buying goals associated with the purchase. When consumers feel that these goals may or may

not be attained in a purchase, risk comes in (Hoover, Green and Saegert 1978). Therefore, the

greater the sense of uncertainty the consumer perceives in a purchase and the greater the

consequences of buying the wrong product, the greater the perceived risk experienced by

consumers.

Perceived risk thus corresponds to the cultural concept of uncertainty avoidance.

Individuals high in uncertainty avoidance have a lower tolerance for ambiguity, and

experience higher anxiety and stress in their lives. In addition, they are also less willing to

take risks in life. Therefore, when these people perceive a high risk associated with a product

or service, they will not purchase this product or service. They will look for less risky

alternatives.

11

In a study by Gentry, Tansuhaj, Manzer and John (1988), the relationship between

three cultural values – fate orientation, religious commitment and cultural adherence – and

perceived risk was studied. They posited that these three factors might explain cross-cultural

differences found in perceived risk because they play an important role in forming

consumers’ attitudes, values and behavior. It was found that there was a correlation between

cultural orientation and perceived risk. That is, those who were more religious and more

fatalistic associated non-technical products with greater risk.

Hence, the level of perceived risk varies from culture to culture, and this is dependent

on the cultural values of tolerance for risk and uncertainty. People who are less capable of

handling risk are more likely to view perceived risk to be higher for any particular product

than those who take risk in their stride. This results in the following proposition:

Proposition 7: People from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance are more likely to experience higher levels of perceived risk in consumption than those from cultures low in uncertainty avoidance.

Brand Loyalty

Brand loyalty refers to the consistent preference and purchase of the same brand in a

specific product or service category (Schiffman and Kanuk 1997). It was found that diverse

consumer groups associated brand loyalty with risk (Hoover, Green and Saegert 1978) and

this association is a positive relation (Kanwar and Pagiavlas 1992). In other words, when

consumers perceive that the risk associated with a particular product or service category is

high, they will tend to remain loyal to one brand so as to minimise the uncertainty and any

unpleasant consequences that may occur as a result of the switching of brands.

Kanwar and Pagiavlas (1992) found that U.S. and Indian consumers use brand loyalty

as a method of reducing risk. Hui et al. (1993) studied fourteen lifestyle variables involving

12

English, French, Italian and Greek Canadians and found significant differences in thirteen of

the variables, including brand loyalty.

Thus, brand loyalty stems from the level of uncertainty and ambiguity an individual is

willing to tolerate in life. This relates to the cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance and

has been shown to differ across cultures. Thus, the following proposition is derived:

Proposition 8: People from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance are more likely to remain brand loyal in their purchase of products or services than those from cultures low in uncertainty avoidance.

Innovativeness

Innovativeness can be defined as the willingness of consumers to adopt new products

in various consumption domains (Hirschman 1981). This is related to the ability to tolerate

risk and uncertainty. Intuitively, individuals who cannot tolerate risk and ambiguity will not

be inclined to seek new products and therefore will not be innovators. In this case, these are

the people high in uncertainty avoidance as they cannot tolerate ambiguity in their lives.

A study by Rogers (1957) found that the willingness to accept change and the degree

of rigidity of individuals were significantly related to their adoption of new products. Hui et

al. (1993) found significant differences between different cultural groups and their brand and

product innovativeness. One contributing factor could be differences in fate orientation.

Individuals who were more fatalistic were also more likely to avoid uncertain situations. In

addition, the degree of religious commitment was also found to have a weak effect on the

level of innovativeness (Tansuhaj et al. 1991). Therefore, innovativeness is dependent on the

propensity of an individual to tolerate the risk and uncertainty associated with a new or

totally different product. This leads to the following proposition:

Proposition 9: People from cultures that are high in uncertainty avoidance will be less likely to seek out innovative products or services than those from cultures that are low in uncertainty avoidance.

13

Information search

An individual who has less tolerance for ambiguity and less propensity for risk taking

will also have a need to engage in a thorough information search before he purchases any

new product. This also applies for any product which may cause unpleasant consequences if a

wrong buying decision is made. In other words, information search takes place when there is

a high level of uncertainty associated with a purchase.

The ability to tolerate risk and uncertainty has been shown to influence consumers’

information search behaviors (Garner and Thompson 1986). Hirschman (1983) also found

that there were significant differences between cultures in information transfer which can be

linked to the degree of uncertainty avoidance in each culture. In other words, a person who

rates more highly in uncertainty avoidance will tend to seek out more information sources so

as to minimise any uncertainty involved in the purchase. Therefore, the following proposition

is presented:

Proposition 10: People from cultures high in uncertainty avoidance will be more likely to engage in information search than those from cultures low in uncertainty avoidance.

Masculinity and Its Effects on Consumer Behaviors

Another fundamental fact that different societies deal with in different ways is the

duality of the sexes. The main issue in this concept is whether biological differences between

males and females should have any implications on their societal roles (Hofstede 1980). The

agents of socialisation – families, schools, peer groups and the media – are crucial in sex role

distribution and transference of ideas in society. The predominant pattern of socialisation

however, is for men to be assertive and for women to be nurturing. This pattern leads to men

being more dominant in politics, economics, and within the household.

14

In general, girls are usually socialised towards nurturance and responsibility while

boys are socialised towards achievement and self-reliance (Barry et al. 1959). In addition,

males tend to be more assertive and females more sensitive to social interdependence

(McClelland 1975). Therefore, male behavior is associated with autonomy, aggression,

exhibition and dominance; female behavior with affiliation, helpfulness, and humility

(Hofstede 1980: 263).

The masculinity-femininity dimension developed by Hofstede (1980) is thus derived

from the sex roles characteristics. It further states that masculine cultures will place more

emphasis on tasks, money, achievements, and performance, while feminine cultures value the

quality of life, helping others, preserving the environment and not drawing attention to

oneself (Hofstede 1980).

The fundamental idea behind masculinity is the differentiation of sex roles within

society. This idea is manifested when it comes to decision making in the family. An analysis

of the relationship between masculinity and family decision making is carried out in the

following.

Family Decision Making

A wealth of research has been done on family decision making (e.g. Webster 1994;

Hempel 1974). This area of study is particularly of interest in the context of the cultural

dimension of masculinity-femininity because sex role attitudes and perceptions are ascribed

through cultural norms and these attitudes influence the household decision role structure and

responsibility (Kim, Laroche and Zhou 1993; O’Connor, Sullivan and Pogorzelski 1985).

Blood and Wolfe (1960) also stated that the degree of influence by either the husband or wife

in a family decision is contingent upon the level of traditional marital values present in the

family. O’Connor, Sullivan and Pogorzelski (1985) further emphasised the point in their

15

study when they concluded that decision situations were believed to conform to either

masculine or feminine roles across widely differing cultures.

This is also evident in past research. For instance, Kim, Laroche and Zhou (1993)

found that a more modern sex-role attitude of the husband resulted in an egalitarian approach

to task sharing by the couple. Webster (1994) found that there was a positive relationship

between ethnic identification and husband dominance in decision making within the Hispanic

community. This indicates that the more couples identity with, and have been socialised by

the ethnic basis of highly differentiated sex roles, the more they conform to husband

domination.

Delener (1992) found that in the traditionally male dominated cultures where the

father is seen as the absolute head of the family and has full authority such as the Latin

Americans, the Italian Americans and the Irish Americans, the husbands were the major

influencer in making purchase decisions. This was in contrast to the Cubans and Puerto Rican

Americans where there was more joint decision making. This was attributed to the fact that

the latter two cultures were increasingly exposed to Anglo-American society and as a result,

their family and sex-role related values were becoming more feminine. In a similar study,

Imperia, O’Guinn and MacAdams (1985) found that Mexican-Americans (a masculine

culture) tended to be more husband dominant in purchasing decisions than Anglo families

who engage in more joint decision making.

The stage in the decision making process was also found to be a determinant of the

degree of joint decision making by husband and wife (Hempel 1974). It was concluded that

the nature and type of the decisions affected the role performance of husband and wife.

To summarise, it can be concluded that decision making in the family differs across

cultures and is dependent upon the extent to which the couple’s values belong to the

16

traditional patriarchal system where the husband dominates, or the more modern view of joint

decision making. Therefore, the following proposition is presented:

Proposition 11: People from cultures that rate highly on masculinity are more likely to engage in husband dominant decision making than those from cultures that rate highly on femininity.

Power Distance and Its Influence on Consumer Behaviors

The concept of human inequality is the basic issue involved in power distance. Such

inequality can occur in areas such as prestige, wealth and power and these are given different

emphasis in different societies. However, a “pecking order” will always exist in every society.

The only variation across cultures is how dominance is worked out in human social existence.

Some have elaborate, formal structures of dominance; others go to great lengths to de-

emphasise dominance (Hofstede 1980). The terms caste, estate and class are the three types

of rank inequalities used to differentiate society into different functional areas (Bohannan

1969).

Mulder (1977) defined power distance as “the degree of inequality in power between

a less powerful individual (I) and a more powerful other (O), in which I and O belong to the

same (loosely or tightly knit) social system” (Mulder 1977). From a more rounded

perspective, power distance can be defined as “the extent to which less powerful members of

organisations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed

unequally” (Hofstede and Bond 1988).

Consumer behaviors that are associated with power distance should be influenced by

cultural differences associated with the degree of respect given to authoritative and powerful

figures in societies. In view of this, opinion seeking is suggested as the one factor that can

vary according to differences in power distance.

17

Opinion Seeking

Opinion leadership refers to the behavior of consumers when they influence others’

purchase decisions (Mowen 1990), while opinion seekers are those who actively seek advice

from others (Engel et al. 1990). There is an analogous relationship between the two.

In order to understand opinion seeking, it is essential to look at the underlying

motivations of opinion seekers (Flynn, Goldsmith and Eastman 1996). Katz and Lazarsfeld

(1955) made the point that the desire to be a member of a certain group is a motivating factor

in an individual adopting the values and beliefs of the group’s leaders. By looking to the

leaders for opinions on products, opinion seekers can also place themselves within that social

group.

Another study on listener motivation (Dichter 1966) stated that opinion seekers look

towards several groups of people for recommendations and opinions on products. These

included commercial authorities, such as professional experts who earned their authority in a

particular field on the basis of training and work; and celebrities whose authority is attributed

to show business.

Yau (1988) stated that the Chinese have a strong respect for authority, and they

expect people in authority to teach and guide them. It was suggested in the study that since

the Chinese follow the directions of authority, advertisements targeted at the Chinese will be

more effective when they use societal leaders to recommend products or services to the

consumers.

As a result, the distinction between opinion leaders and opinion seekers may become

more salient in cultures that are high in power distance. For instance, in Indonesia, a country

high in power distance, there is evidence to suggest that opinion leaders are wealthier than

opinion seekers (Marshall and Gitosudarmo 1995). This does not occur in many Western

countries that are low in power distance. It was also found that in India, Indonesia and Korea,

18

three countries high in power distance, opinion leaders tended to be older than opinion

seekers. This suggests that Asians, who are generally higher in power distance than their

Western counterparts, believe in certain figures of authority, and believe that power is

distributed unequally. Hence, Asians feel that a person has to be of a certain age, and own

certain amounts of wealth to qualify as an opinion leader. He has to possess “power” over

them. This provides the basis to suggest that there will be significant numbers of opinion

seekers in these countries as they may look up to people in authority for their opinions on

products. But in low power distance countries, the authority of opinion leaders is less

recognised and there will be fewer people who are interested in their opinions. Therefore, the

following proposition is presented:

Proposition 12: People from cultures with a large power distance are more likely to be opinion seekers than those from cultures with a small power distance.

CONCLUSION

This study has shown that it is possible to establish relationships between

consumption behaviors and culture, an area in which little has been done. Based on the

relationships discussed here, individualism is manifested in behaviors towards reference

group influence, information sharing, opinion leadership and ethnocentrism, as well as the

individual's self concept and family orientation. Uncertainty avoidance shows itself in

perceived risk, brand loyalty, innovativeness and information search. Masculinity influences

family decision making and power distance affects opinion seeking.

Theoretical Implications

The impetus behind this study is the need to understand culture and its effects on

consumer behavior, as well as to establish relationships between the two. This study has

shown that there may be intrinsic differences in the way culturally different subgroups

behave with regard to consumption and purchasing. In an area of marketing research that is

19

growing in importance because of the rapid globalisation of businesses today, it has become

essential for researchers to examine the intricacies of marketing to different people in

different cultures. There is however, a lack of studies that have actually tried to link culture

and consumer behaviors on a large scale. This research has shown that there are indeed

consumption behaviors that are related to and are influenced by cultural differences. In this

aspect, this paper has the potential to be the stepping stone for future similar studies, and this

serves to be its most important implication in the academic field.

Directions for Future Research

There are a few proposed directions for future research. Firstly, the proposed

relationships explored in this study should be empirically examined in order to validate their

significance. Secondly, future studies should continue to investigate relationships between

culture and consumer behavior at various angles in order to come up with more accurate and

clearer understanding between these two very important aspects in marketing. Besides the

use of Hofstede’s (1980) four cultural dimensions, future researchers can look into other

cultural models that have previously been developed. Similarly, consumer behaviors other

than the ones investigated here should also be brought out in future researches in order to

develop a clearer picture of the way culture impacts behavior.

It is hoped that this study has provided a more complete picture in understanding the

influence of culture and ethnicity in consumption patterns in multiracial societies. Also, it is

the hope that this study will be the spark that ignites a host of local and regional researches

regarding culture’s consequences on consumer behavior.

20

REFERENCES Abe, S., R.P. Bagozzi and P. Sadarangani (1996), “An investigation of construct validity and generalisability of the self-concept: Self-Consciousness in Japan and the United States,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8, 3/4, 97-123. Barry, H., M.K. Bacon and I.L. Child (1959), “A Cross-cultural survey of some sex differences in socialisation,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 327-332. Belk, R.W. (1984a), “Cultural and historical differences in concepts of self and their effects on attitudes toward having and giving,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 754-760. Blood, R.O., Jr. and D.M. Wolfe (1960), Husbands, Wives: The Dynamics of Married Living. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Bohannan, P. (1969), Social Anthropology. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Booth, K. (1979), Strategy and Ethnocentrism. London: Croom-Helm. Childers, T.L. and A.R. Rao (1992), “The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups on consumer decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9, September, 183-194. Delener, N. (1992), “Consumer-related marital role orientations among Hispanic, Irish and Italian-American wives: A Subcultural comparison,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 4, 4, 7-31. Dichter, E. (1966), “How word-of-mouth advertising works”, Harvard Business Review, 44 (November-December), 147-166. Doran, K.B. (1994), “Exploring cultural differences in consumer decision making: Chinese consumers in Montreal,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 318-322. Dowling, G.R. and R. Staelin (1994), “A model of perceived risk and intended risk-handling activity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21, June, 119-134. Engel, J.F., R.D. Blackwell and P.W. Miniard (1990), Consumer Behaviour, Sixth Edition. Chicago: Dryden. Flynn, L.R., R.E. Goldsmith and J.K. Eastman (1994), “The King and Summers opinion leadership scale: Revision and refinement,” Journal of Business Research, 31, 55-64. Garner, S.J. and H.A. Thompson (1986), “Patient perceived risk in the purchase of physician services,” Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 1, Fall/ Winter, 149-159. Gentry, J.W., P. Tansuhaj, L.L. Manzer and J. John (1988), “Do geographic subcultures vary culturally?” Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 411-417. Gregory, G.D. and J.M. Munch (1996), “Reconceptualizing individualism-collectivism in consumer behaviour,” Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 104-110.

21

Gregory, G.D. and J.M. Munch (1997), “Cultural values in international advertising: An examination of familial norms and roles in Mexico,” Psychology and Marketing, 14, 99-119. Hattie, J. (1992), Self-Concept. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hempel, D.J. (1974), “Family buying decisions: A Cross-cultural perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11, August, 295-302. Herbig, P.A. and J.C. Miller (1992), “Culture and technology: Does the traffic move in both directions?” Journal of Global Marketing, 6, 3, 75-104. Hirschman, E.C. (1981), “American Jewish ethnicity: Its relationship to some selected aspects of consumer behaviour,” Journal of Marketing, 45, Summer, 102-110. Hirschman, E.C. (1983), “Cognitive structure across consumer ethnic subcultures: A Comparative analysis,” Advances in Consumer Research, 10, 197-202. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw-Hill. Hofstede, G. and M.H. Bond (1988), “The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth,” Organisational Dynamics, 16, Spring, 5-21. Hoover, R.J., R.T. Green and J. Saegert (1978), “A Cross-national study of perceived risk,” Journal of Marketing, 42, July, 102-108. Hui, C.H. and H.C. Triandis (1986), “Individualism-Collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248. Hui, M., A. Joy, C. Kim and M. Laroche (1993), “Equivalence of lifestyle dimensions across four major subcultures in Canada,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 5, 3, 15-35. Imperia, G., T.C. O’Guinn and E.A. MacAdams (1985), “Family decision making role perceptions among Mexican-American and Anglo wives: A Cross cultural comparison,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 71-74. Kahle, L.R., S.E. Beatty and P. Homer (1989), “Consumer values in Norway and the United States: A comparison”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 1, 4, 81-91. Kanwar, R. and N. Pagiavlas (1992), “When are higher social class consumers more and less brand loyal than lower social class consumers?: The role of mediating variables,” Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 589-595. Katz, E. and P.F. Lazarsfeld (1955), Personal Influence. New York: Free Press.

22

Kim, C., M. Laroche and L. Zhou (1993), “An investigation of ethnicity and sex-role attitude as factors influencing household financial task sharing behaviour,” Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 52-58. Lee, W-N. and K-H. Ro Um (1992), “Ethnicity and consumer product evaluation: A Cross-cultural comparison of Korean immigrants and Americans,” Advances in Consumer Research, 19, 429-436. Lynn, M., G.M. Zinkhan and J. Harris (1993), “Consumer tipping: A Cross-country study,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 478-488. Mager, J. and W.R. Wynd (1993), “Marketing implications of the value differences between Soviet and American students,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 6, 1, 87-107. Marshall, R. (1996), “Consumer behaviour in the Asia-Pacific region,” Marketing: A Southeast Asian Perspective, ed. Ian McGovern. Singapore: Addison Wesley, 65-113. Marshall, R. and I. Gitosudarmo (1995), “Variation in the characteristics of opinion leaders across cultural borders,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8, 1, 5-22. Matsumoto, D., T. Kudoh and S. Takeuchi (1996), “Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan,” Culture and Psychology, 2, 77-107. McClelland, D.C. (1975), Power: The Inner Experience. New York: Irvington. McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 71-84. Mowen, J.C. (1990), Consumer Behaviour. Macmillan, New York. Mulder, M. (1977), The Daily Power Game. Leyden: Martinus Nijhoff. Murray, N.M. and L.A. Manrai (1993), “Exploratory consumption behaviour: A Cross cultural perspective,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 5, 1, 101-119. Nakata, C. and K. Sivakumar (1996), “National culture and new product development: An integrative review,” Journal of Marketing, 60, 61-72. O’Connor, P.J., G.L. Sullivan and D.A. Pogorzelski (1985), “Cross cultural family purchasing decisions: A Literature review,” Advances in Consumer Research, 12, 59-64. Ownbey, S.F. and P.E. Horridge (1997), “Acculturation levels and shopping orientations of Asian-American consumers,” Psychology and Marketing, 14, 1, 1-18. Park, C.W. and V.P. Lessig (1977), “Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 102-110.

23

Rogers, E.M. (1957), “Personality correlates of the adoption of technological practices,” Rural Sociology, 22, September, 267-8. Saegert, J., R.J. Hoover and M.T. Hilger (1985), “Characteristics of Mexican American consumers,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 104-109. Schiffman, L.G. and L.L. Kanuk (1997), Consumer Behaviour, Sixth Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall International, Inc. Shaw, M.E. (1971), Group dynamics: The Psychology of small group behaviour, New York: McGraw Hill, in Consumer behaviour: Basic findings and management implications, Gerald Zaltman and Melanie Wallendorf (1979), New York: John Wiley & Sons. Shimp, T.A. and S. Sharma (1987), “Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24(August), 280-289. Sojka, J.Z. and P.S. Tansuhaj (1995), “Cross-cultural consumer research: A twenty-year review,” Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 461-474. Tai, S. and J. Tam (1997), “A Lifestyle analysis of female consumers in Greater China”, Psychology and Marketing, 14, 3, 287-307. Triandis, H.C., R. Bontempo, H. Betancourt, M. Bond, K. Leung, A. Brenes, J. Georgas, C.H. Hui, G. Marin, B. Setiadi, J.B.P. Sinha, J. Verma, J. Spangenberg, H. Touzard and G. de Montmollin (1986), “The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures,” Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-267. Wallace, A.F.C. (1965), Culture and personality. New York: Random House. Webster, C. (1992), “The effects of Hispanic subcultural identification on information search behaviour,” Journal of Advertising Research, 32, 5, September/October, 54-62. Webster, C. (1994), “Effects of Hispanic ethnic identification on marital roles in the purchase decision process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21, September, 319-331. Webster, C. and J.B. Faircloth III (1994), “The role of Hispanic ethnic identification on reference group influence”, Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 458-463. Witt, R.E. (1970), Group Influence on Consumer Brand Choice. The University of Texas: Bureau of Business Research. Worchel, S. and J. Cooper (1979), Understanding Social Psychology. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press. Wu, Teh-yao (1975), “The cultural heritage of Singapore: The essence of the Chinese tradition,” Symposium on the Cultural Heritage of Singapore, 59-78. Yau, O.H.M. (1988), “Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing implications,” European Journal of Marketing, 22, 5, 44-57.

24

Yamaguchi, S. (1994), “Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self,” Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, eds. U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S-C. Choi and G. Yoon. California: Sage.

25