ABSTRACT This investigation examined the relationship between subcultural group mem- bership and the importance of various product attributes in purchase decisions. Subcultural group membership was defined on the basis of Hispanic ethnicity and level of assessed acculturation. The results indicate that cost considerations such as price and the availability of credit best distinguish these groups. This is particularly meaningful, given that these results persist even when income level is statistically controlled. The second major purpose of the investigation was to test the appropriateness of the traditional progressive learning model of accul- turation within the specific buyer behavioral context of product attribute impor- tance. The findings clearly indicate support for this model.

Ethnicity, Acculturation, and the Importance of Product Attributes

Ronald J. Faber University of Texas at Austin Thomas C. O’Guhn John A. McCarty University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Among the many factors influencing buyer behavior are those which are a func- tion of culture or subculture (Sturdivant, 1973; Zaltman, 1965). Our families, our reference groups, and our most important social institutions are culturally bound. All of our behavior is subject to the pressures of these cultural norms and expectations. It would be naive to think that buyer behavior was somehow immune.

Psychology & Marketing 0 1987 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Vol. 4, 121-134 CCC 0742-6046/87/0 1012 1 - 14$04.OO

PRODUCT A'ITRIBUTES

While consumer behaviorists have generally tended to treat culture forces as given, only a few researchers have actually provided empirical support as to their impact on buyer behavior. It has, for example, been demonstrated that culture and subculture have some impact on such things as innovativeness (Dal- rymple, Robertson, and Yoshino, 1971), family decision making (Davis and Rigaux, 1974; Douglas, 1976), advertising response (Weichmann, 1974), and product attribute importance (Bauer, Cunningham, and Wortzel, 1965).

It is the last of these, product attribute importance, that is the focus of the present investigation. One of the most significant cultural manifestations in buyer behavior may be the way in which a product is evaluated as a function of its various attributes. Marketers may well be attempting to present and sell unified and homogeneous product images to increasingly heterogeneous cultures, which may perceive and evaluate products in entirely different ways. Given the in- creasingly international and culturally heterogeneous nature of present day mar- kets, this problem is clearly fundamental.

CULTURE AND PRODUCT A'LTRIBUTE EVALUATION

Hirschman (1983) and Bauer, Cunningham, and Wortzel(l965) have sug- gested that the perception of product attribute importance may be culturally bound. Thus, different cultures and subcultures may be concerned with different product characteristics. A few examples can help illustrate how different aspects of culture can influence perceptions of product attributes.

Nakamura (1984) asserts that philosophical differences underlie the dif- ferences found in the attributes stressed in the content of Japanese and U.S. advertisements. In Western nations communication is expected to be explicit, verbal, and rational, while in Japan implicit, nonverbal and intuitive commu- nication is preferred (Lebra, 1976). The Western preference can be traced back to the syllogistic reasoning and logical debate advocated by Aristotle and the Greek philosophers. Japan, on the other hand, developed from Oriental philos- ophy which relies on inner logic in which form is often more important than content (Yamada, 1980).

Cultural or religious values and rules can also influence the relative im- portance of certain product attributes. For example, Jewish consumers may be highly concerned with the ingredients and the procedures followed in preparing and producing certain food products while other consumers are completely un- interested in whether or not a product is Kosher.

Similarly, cultural variations in the way a product is used can affect eval- uations of specific attributes. For example, in many European cultures wine is a standard part of a meal, while until recently wine was usually reserved for special occasions in the United States. This cultural difference in the frequency

122 SUMMER 1987

PRODUCT ATI’RIBUTES

and purpose of use can affect the importance of specific attributes. Price, for instance, may be more important in choosing a wine if it is frequently consumed than if it is purchased only for special occasions.

Finally, environmental centrality, functional relevance, and object impor- tance may also cause differences in attribute recognition and importance. The classic example of this is that Eskimos make many more linguistic and conceptual distinctions between various types of snow than people in cultures where snow is not a primary environmental characteristic (Boas, 1911; Whorf, 1940). A similar situation may occur with respect to products and their attributes. If a product is more central, or of greater functional relevance, in one culture than another, then its attributes may be evaluated differently as well. For example, it is likely that the American and Chinese views of what is important about an automobile may vary as a function of the automobile’s centrality within the two cultures.

These few examples are illustrative of the ways in which product attributes might be influenced by learned cultural factors. Marketers and advertisers there- fore need to become aware of the importance of culture on product attribute evaluation. The assumption of universal product attribute importance could lead to stressing an irrelevant attribute, or ignoring one central to a given cultural group. Clearly, this can easily result in impaired marketing communication and diminish the success of the entire marketing effort.

SUBCULTURE AND ACCULTURATION

The situation becomes more complicated when we turn our attention to subcultural differences rather than focusing on distinct and separate national cultures. Due to the inherently dynamic nature of a situation where two or more cultures reside in close proximity, differences in product attribute importance may be more subtle, but nonetheless critical to successful marketing efforts. It is in this context that the concept of acculturation becomes central. Acculturation is the adoption of the dominant culture’s beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors.

A basic assumption often made with regard to acculturation is that it occurs via a progressive learning process (Kim, 1979), sometimes referred to as cultural assimilation. This model assumes that individuals additively acquire new values and behaviors as contact with the new culture increases. This belief can be traced to anthropological research in the 1930s (Mead, 1932).

According to this progressive learning model, subcultural group members would be expected to hold norms and values somewhere between those of the culture of origin and the host society. The more acculturated the individual, the greater the progression toward the attitudes and values of the host society.

Recent research has, however, presented a picture which is not always

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 123

PRODUCT AlTRIBUTES

consistent with this model. Wallendorf and Reilly (1983) in their study of Mex- icans, Mexican-Americans, and Anglos found that Mexican-American con- sumption patterns did not fit neatly between the culture of origin (Mexico) and the adopted culture (Anglo), but rather were distinctly different from both groups.

This deviation from the expected linear pattern may occur either as a result of immigrants misperceiving or misinterpreting the host society’s norms. Some members of minority subcultures may wish to become acculturated, but not understand the new norms in their true complexity. Wallendorf and Reilly sug- gested that the Mexican-Americans in their study may have been attempting to fit a perception of the American culture which was either outdated or more of a stereotype than a reality. Similarly, Faber, O’Guinn, and MacAdams (1985) have suggested that there may be a stage in the acculturation process during which learning is largely imitative and does not rely upon a more comprehensive understanding of cultural subtleties. In this stage, one simply copies the visible and outward manifestations of the dominant culture in order to facilitate positive social interaction. As Wallendorf and Reilly have suggested, these visible man- ifestations of the culture may be gleaned primarily from sources such as the mass media. This could help to explain the nonlinear pattern they found.

In any event, we appear to have competing perceptions of the functioning of this central theoretical construct. On the one hand, we have the traditional model of acculturation premised on a straightforward learning framework. In opposition, we have at least some evidence of an acculturation process in which the attitudes, values, and behaviors of immigrants are uncharacteristic of those of the nation of origin or the new host society.

THE STUDY

The present investigation sought to assess the relationship between sub- cultural group membership and perceived product attribute importance. Groups were defined on the basis of both ethnicity and level of acculturation. Addition- ally, this study sought to provide some indication as to the appropriateness of the traditional learning model approach to acculturation, within a buyer behav- ioral context.

This investigation focused on the Hispanic subculture of Chicago. While some research has suggested that this group is can be characterized as particularly brand loyal (Robertson, Zielinski, and Ward, 1984), price conscious (Yanke- lovich, Skelley, and White, 1982), and significantly influenced by family members (Hoyer and Deshpande, 1982), research here is still in its infancy. Therefore, it was felt that the existing literature could not justify creating explicit hypotheses.

124 SUMMER 1987

PRODUCT ATTRIBUTES

METHOD

Data for this investigation were collected during the Fall of 1983 and early Spring of 1984. Chicago was selected because it represents the sixth largest concentration of Hispanics in the United States, and is the most heterogeneous of any major Hispanic AD1 with respect to the composition of the Hispanic population by national origin (Guernica, 1982). A sample of Anglo and Hispanic subjects was obtained via a mixed method procedure which incorporated both random digit dialing and systematic selection of Spanish surnames from the Chicago telephone directory. The authors fully realize that by choosing telephone interviews some degree of bias was introduced due to the underrepresentation of minority populations in ethnic telephone samples. Yet given the problems associated with alternative data collection procedures, the level of bias was felt to be within the range of acceptability. The investigators, as well as the data collection agency, made every effort to reduce sampling bias, and believe that it did not significantly affect the sample’s representativeness.

Ethnic identification was self-defined. In addition to being asked to choose the most appropriate response from a predefined list of ethnic groups, respondents were given the opportunity to define their ethnicity in a completely open-ended manner. Both the predefined list and the open-ended questions were the product of extensive pretesting, and are entirely consistent with cross-cultural research traditions (Triandis, 1972).

In the analysis phase, only those respondents who identified themselves as “Anglo” were classified as such. All respondents in the non-Hispanic strata who identified themselves as belonging to any ethnic group other than Anglo (i.e., Polish, French, Irish, Jewish, Black) were excluded from the analysis. The purpose here was to compare the dominant Anglo culture with the Hispanic subculture. Hispanics were those respondents who either described themselves as such, or identified themselves as a member of an ethnic group which was clearly of Hispanic origin (e.g., Mexican-American, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc.). While there may be important differences between Hispanics of different national origins living in Chicago, practical limitations of sample size and economy prevented any finer analytic ethnic breakdowns.

A telephone interview of approximately 25 minutes gathered an extensive set of data regarding many aspects of buyer behavior, demography, media ex- posure, and attitudes toward advertising and advertisers. These interviews were conducted by Spanish language interviewers trained and employed by the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A total of 205 Hispanic and 105 Anglo interviews were conducted. There were two separate instruments, one in English, the other in Spanish; respondents had their choice. The instruments were developed in such a way as to minimize the emic- etic dilemma that has traditionally plagued cross-cultural research (Hendrix, 1984; Triandis, 1972). Measurement equivalence was facilitated by not only

PSYCHOLOGY 81 MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 125

PRODUCT ATIRIBUTES

back-translating in the manner suggested by Brislin (1970), but by extensive pretesting and qualitative analysis during instrument development. Any questions which lead to conceptual differences across ethnic groups were deleted. While this did not completely insure conceptual equivalence, we do believe that it made this type of error much less likely.

The Hispanic and Anglo questionnaire differed in content only in so far as Hispanics were asked additional questions regarding the Hispanic experience in Chicago. One very critical aspect of this experience is acculturation. For this reason, the instrument contained several items specifically designed to assess this important dimension. The majority of these items have a long-standing tradition in cross-cultural research (Triandis, 1972), while some additional items were the products of more recent research (O’Guinn and Meyer, 1984). Accul- turation related items assessed the national origin of the respondent, his or her parents, his or her spouse, and his or her grandparents. Also measured were situational language preferences, media preferences related to language, ethnic heterogeneity of the respondent’s neighborhood, membership in Hispanic social and business organizations, as well as attitudes related to cultural identification and alienation.

For this particular analysis, a language-based acculturation scale was em- ployed. This was done primarily because the adoption of language has long been associated with advancing acculturation. While this association is obviously imperfect, it has been used in many studies and is considered a generally reliable indication of acculturation (Olmeda and Padilla, 1978). Language, like many other behaviors, is subject to a great many situation and role demands. Role theory (e.g., Biddle, 1982) would suggest that language preference should be measured in at least several different situations and roles so as to get a more complete and less biased measure of acculturation.

Five separate language use measures were employed in the acculturation index. These were: the language in which the respondent chose to be interviewed, preferred speaking language, language preferred when at home, language pre- ferred when shopping, and language preferred when reading. All measures, except for the language chosen for the interview employed 3-point scales with Spanish and English being the anchor points, and a bilingual preference repre- sented by the midpoint. The questionnaire preference was simply Spanish or English. The scores from all five items were standardized and these standard scores were added to form a composite scale.

The language-based acculturation scale was then tested for internal relia- bility. The results of this analysis indicated that the scale was parsimonious and had high internal consistency (Chronbach’s alpha = .88).

Hispanic respondents were then divided into two groups based on their acculturation scores. Hispanic respondents falling at or below the median of the acculturation scale were classified as “low” with respect to their acculturation level, while those with scores above this value were classified as “high.” As a

126 SUMMER 1987

PRODUCT A’ITRIBUTES

result of this classification, all respondents were members of one of three mutually exclusive groups: Hispanics low in acculturation, Hispanics high in acculturation, or Anglos.

Product Attributes

Members of these three groups rated the importance of different attributes of four separate products. These products were laundry detergent, coffee, a television set, and an automobile. These products were chosen because they represented a diverse spectrum of goods in terms of price, purchase interval, and associated risk, and because pretesting indicated they were items owned or purchased by the vast majority of respondents.

Respondents were asked to assess seven attributes of laundry detergents, eight attributes of coffee and a television, and eleven attributes of a car. The attributes were selected from an initial list of 35 to 40 possible items on the basis of what the researchers believed, and extensive pretest results indicated, to be relevant, important, and common dimensions of purchase consideration. A few attributes were also eliminated during the pretest phase because they created possible confusion of misinterpretation among the respondents.

In each case, the subject was asked, “If you were buying a (product), how important would (attribute) be?” Responses were measured on a 4-point scale with values ranging from (I) “very important” to (4) “not at all important” (the scale was reverse coded during analysis for ease of interpretation where 4 = very important). These questions were asked, and often repeated by the interviewers, until it was believed that respondents understood the question and the scale values. The interviewers underwent extensive training in eliciting responses and participated in at least four pretests and debriefings, to insure the quality of the data collection.

ANALYSIS

Data analysis had two primary objectives. First, we wished to assess the relationship between perceived product attribute importance and subcultural group membership. Additionally, we wished to determine the appropriateness of the traditional progressive learning model of acculturation within the context of product attribute importance.

Our primary procedure was multiple discriminant analysis. Given our par- ticular research goals, this statistical tool possessed several advantages. First, it allowed us to approach the situation in a multivariate fashion, providing simul- taneous consideration of the various product attributes. A multivariate procedure

PSYCHOLOGY 81 MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 127

PRODUCT AlTFUBUTES

is preferable to a simple series of univariate F-tests when intercorrelations among the dependent measures would cause the true nature of the group differences to be unnecessarily obscured by tests of redundant variance (Tatsuoka, 1970, p. 55). By deriving multivariate functions representing the linear combination of variables which best defined group membership, it also allowed for more par- simonious solutions and interpretations. The relative importance of each attribute in terms of its ability to discriminate among the ethnic groups can be determined by the size of the discriminant function coefficient. Finally, the evaluation of group centroids (the group means on the linear combination of variables) provided a convenient way in which to determine whether more acculturated Hispanics would have product evaluation patterns which fell between less acculturated Hispanics and members of the dominant Anglo society, thus supporting the traditional model of acculturation as a progressive learning process.

Our use of discriminant analysis is consistent with the basic research application of this statistical tool (Tatsuoka, 1970), and with the objectives of this study. An alternative use of this procedure is to find the best linear com- bination of criterion variables which will allow one to reduce the chances of misclassifying a case as a member of two or more mutually exclusive groups. Since group membership was, for the most part, a given, our analytic focus was more related to the relative importance of various product attributes in distin- guishing these groups.

In the present study, the nominal-level dependent measure was subcultural grouping: low acculturated Hispanic, high acculturated Hispanic, and Anglo. Each of the four products was analyzed independently, with their respective attributes serving as independent measures. Wilk’s lambda was the selection criterion since it simultaneously attempts to maximize group separation as well as group homogeneity (Klecka, 1975). All variables were entered into the equa- tion simultaneously.

Once the functions were derived, they were interpreted according to the relative size and direction of the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients. Tatsuoka’s (1970) rule of thumb, that only those coefficients that are at least half as large as the greatest are accounting for nontrivial variance and should be considered as contributing to the discriminant function, was em- ployed. Following this, an analysis of the direction and magnitude of the group centroids was conducted. A group centroid is analogous to a weighted mean of all the attributes for a produce where each attribute is weighted according its discriminant coefficient. This allowed the researchers an opportunity to assess the extent to which the traditional progressive learning model is supported.

Following the discriminant analysis, univariate comparisons of group means were conducted on the attribute evaluations via analysis of covariance with income serving as the covariate. These analyses were undertaken to determine the extent to which differences that exist across cultural groups are simply due to economic differences.

PRODUCT A'ITRIBUTES

FINDINGS

Discriminant Analysis:

Coffee. In the case of coffee, only one statistically significant (p < .001) discriminant function emerged, accounting for 15.1 percent of the total variance. This function is primarily defined by brand (S31) and price (.801). These positive discriminant coefficients indicate greater importance of the attributes among groups with a higher centroid, while negative coefficients would indicate lesser importance of the attribute among groups with a higher centroid.

Analysis of the group centroids indicates the relative position of the three cultural groups with respect to the function. Higher group centroid values would demonstrate an increased importance of brand and price within the purchase decision. An analysis of group centroids reveals that the less acculturated His- panic centroid is the highest (.434), followed by the more acculturated Hispanics (.073), and finally the Anglos ( - .418). The rank ordering of these centroids is very consistent with the traditional learning model of acculturation.

Laundry Detergent. Discriminant analysis of laundry detergent likewise produced one significant (p < .001) function which accounted for 16.1 percent of the total variance. In this instance, the function is characterized by price (.777) and friends' preference (.488).

Once again, the ordering of the group centroids shows the low acculturated Hispanics falling highest on the function (.38 l), followed by high acculturated Hispanics (.291) and Anglos ( - .490). For detergent, therefore, low acculturated Hispanics consider a combination of price and friends' preference to be more important attributes within the purchase decision process than do the other two groups.

Television. Two statistically significant (p < .001; p < .005) functions emerged from the analysis of the television attributes. These two functions accounted for 38.8 percent of the total variance. The first function accounted for approximately 87S percent of the explained variance and is predominately characterized by the importance of the availability of credit (.866), with all other attributes making trivial contributions to the function.

Analysis of the group centroids of the first function indicates credit is most important to low acculturated Hispanics (.782), somewhat less important to high acculturated Hispanics (.303), and considerably less important to Anglos ( - .791). Once again, these results are supportive of the traditional progressive learning model of acculturation.

The second, and clearly less important function (12.5% of explained vari-

' Complete tables of results are available from the authors upon request.

PSYCHOLOGY 81 MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 129

PRODUCT ATIRIBUTES

ance), is characterized by the importance of features (.656) and warranty (.505) and low importance of quality ( - .441) and brand ( - .492).

Analysis of the second function’s centroids reveals a different ordering of the three subcultures. It appears that high acculturated Hispanics score highest on this function (.534), followed by low acculturated Hispanics ( - .038), then Anglos ( - .355).

Automobile. The discriminant analysis for automobiles yielded two sig- nificant discriminant functions (p < .001; p < .Ol), which accounted for 32.6 percent of the total variance. The first function, accounting for 82.6 percent of the explained variance, is characterized by the relative importance of credit (.617), warranty (.483), and mileage (.337), and a lesser importance of service ( - .337) and quality ( - .379).

The rank order of group centroids for this first function is identical to the primary discriminant functions for the other products. That is, the less accul- turated Hispanics are highest (S63) on the function, followed by the more acculturated Hispanics (.367), and finally the Anglos (- .672). Therefore, low acculturation indicates the relative importance of credit, warranty and mileage, and less concern for service and quality when shopping for an automobile.

The second discriminant function accounted for only 17.8 percent of the explained variance. It reflects the relative importance of service (.669), features (.540), and mileage (.410) and a lesser concern for quality ( - .585) and model ( - .595).

The ordering of the group centroids reveals a pattern in which the highest score on the function is for high acculturated Hispanics (.302), followed by Anglos (. 198) and less acculturated Hispanics ( - .571).

Analysis of Covariance

Previous authors have cautioned that findings of subcultural differences can be caused by non-cultural factors such as economic well being (Sturdivant, 1973; Powell and Valencia, 1984). In order to make certain this was not the case in this particular investigation, we examined the product attributes via one- way analysis of covariance, with income serving as the covariate. Statistically significant differences in group means could then be interpreted as meaningful, and not simply the results of income differences between subcultural groups.

The results of the analysis of covariance indicated that after controlling for the impact of actual income all of the cost related attributes yielded significant differences among the groups. The overall F ratio for price was statistically significant in all four cases (p < .001 for coffee, detergent, and a television; p < .05 for an automobile). For all four products, the pattern of the means had the same order across the three groups. That is, the less acculturated Hispanics rated price as most important, followed by the more acculturated Hispanics, while Anglo respondents gave it the lowest mean ratings. Respondents were also asked about the importance of the availability of credit in the purchase of a

130 SUMMER 1987

PRODUCT ATI'FIIBLJTES

television and an automobile. Significant group differences were found for this cost related attribute as well (p < .001 for each), and they followed the same pattern observed for price.

The analysis of covariance also showed that there are a greater proportion of significant differences among the attributes for the two durable goods than for the two nondurable goods, indicating that the ethnic groups differ on a greater variety of attributes when considering a television or an automobile. These results coincide with those of the discriminant analysis. A greater percentage of the total variance was explained by the discriminant functions for the durable goods compared to the functions for the nondurable goods.

DISCUSSION

The results of the present study indicate that there are cultural differences involved in the evaluation of the importance of some product attributes. The use of multiple discriminant analysis showed that produce attribute importance suc- cessfully discriminated members of three subcultural categories defined by eth- nicity and level of acculturation. Furthermore, the results largely supported the traditional learning model of acculturation within a buyer behavioral context.

In the case of all four products, the major discriminating variable related to the cost of the product, either expressed as price or the availability of credit. Price most differentiated the subcultural groups in the case of the two nondurable goods, coffee and laundry detergent. For the two durable goods, however, the availability of credit was the major contributor the discriminant function. Inter- estingly, price did not contribute largely to discriminating among the subcultural groups for the major durables. For these major purchases, the importance of price varies less across groups than does the ability to pay on a monthly basis. This is not surprising given that advertising for expensive items often emphasizes credit in lieu of the total price of the item.

Results relating the cost of products to subcultural group membership are all the more significant given that they persisted after differences in income across subcultural groups were statistically controlled. Income alone does not, therefore, account for the importance of price and the availability of credit. One possible explanation is that cost is more subjective than objective. Given that the cost of a good may largely be a matter of perception, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that perceptions of cost could vary with cultural or sub- cultural group membership. This is, in fact, consistent with the notion of sub- jective subculture of poverty (Lewis, 1966; Sturdivant, 1973), as well as the concept of subjective discretionary income (Wells, O'Guinn, and Horn, 1986). The concept of subjective poverty suggests that certain individuals may feel poor because of past learning rather than their actual present economic situation. Likewise, research using a measure of subjective discretionary income found that even after equating for actual disposable income, there were differences in

PSYCHOLOGY & MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 131

PRODUCT A’ZTRIBLJTES

people’s willingness to spend money on products and their perceived ability to afford them. In the case of ethnic subcultures, group membership may assert a larger influence on the perceived importance of cost-related attributes than actual income.

The second major concern of this investigation involves the assessment of the appropriateness of the traditional learning model within this particular buyer behavioral context. In this regard, the results showed considerable support for the traditional model. In the case of all four products’ primary discriminant functions, the pattern of the group centroids was supportive of this progressive learning process. That is, the highly acculturated Hispanics had importance ratings of attributes that fell between the low acculturated Hispanics and the host Anglo culture. It was only in the second discriminant functions for a television set and an automobile that this pattern was not observed. In these two instances, the functions accounted for less than 20 percent of the explained variance and were clearly secondary. While this suggests that nonlinear relationships may emerge in some instances, the weight of the evidence in this study clearly supports the traditional model.

One might ask, however, how the support for the traditional progressive learning model of acculturation in this study can be reconciled with the strong evidence of a nonlinear process presented by Wallendorf and Reilly. The answer may lie in the nature of the measures used in the two studies. Wallendorf and Reilly were interested in the actual consumption of products while the current authors were concerned with the importance of certain attributes of products before a purchase decision is made. Clearly, behavioral patterns such as con- sumption would be expected to be more susceptible to imitative learning than would attitudinal aspects of buyer behavior such as attribute importance. Further research is necessary to understand when the traditional learning model of ac- culturation does or does not apply to buyer behavior.

While the primary findings of this investigation are very consistent, further research should be conducted in order to determine the extent to which subcultural group membership affects the way in which a product’s attributes are evaluated in terms of importance. Clearly, future research should investigate matters related to the culturally bound nature of cost considerations. Most importantly, research should examine the impact of both ethnicity and acculturation level on a wider variety of consumer decisions. The results of the present study indicated that the relation between subcultural group membership and product attribute im- portance was stronger for the two durable goods, compared to the nondurable goods. The relationship between ethnicity and product attribute evaluation needs to be tested for a greater variety of expensive durable items.

Current research is still confined within the early stages of our understand- ing of ethnicity and acculturation, and the role they play in influencing buyer behavior. A continued emphasis on acculturation is desirable because of its ability to help us understand where and why cultural differences exist. It may also have

132 SUMMER 1987

PHODUCT ATTRIBUTES

practical implications for marketers in their use of segmentation strategies to enhance communication with consumers and ultimately, increase sales.

Furthermore, future research needs to examine different cultural and sub- cultural groups to ensure that our theoretical statements are not limited to just one specific group, but indeed reflect the more general relationship of subcultural group membership, acculturation and buyer behavior. Additionally, we need to view acculturation as an on going process and utilize longitudinal research designs to focus on how and why changes occur during this process. These are but a few of the areas which deserve exploration as we begin to try to understand the role culture, subculture, and acculturation play in buyer behavior.

REFERENCES

Bauer, R. A., Cunningham, S. M., and Wortzel, L. H. (1%5). The marketing dilemma of negroes.

Biddle, B. (1982). Role theory, expectations. identities and behaviors. New York: Academic Press. Boas, F. (1%3). Introduction to the handbook of American Indiun languages. Washington: George-

Brislin, R. (1970). Back-translation for cross-culturdl research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychol-

Davis, H., and Rigaux, B. (1974). Perceptions of marital roles in decision processes. Journal of Consumer Research, I , 55-62.

Dayrymple, D. J. , Robertson, T. S., and Yashino, M. Y. (1971). Consumption behavior across ethnic categories. California Management Review, 14, 65-70.

Douglas, S. P. (1976). Cross-national comparisons and consumer stereotypes: A case study of working and non-working wives in the U.S. and France. Journal of Consumer Research, 3. 12-20.

Faber, R. J., O’Guinn, T. C., and MacAdams, E. A. (1984). Hispanic and Anglo ethnicity and acculturation: A cross-cultural comparison of product attribute ratings [Summary]. Compar- ative consumer psychology: Proceedings of the 1984 conference. Columbia, SC: American Psychological Association, Division 23.

Guernica, A. (1982). Reuching the Hispanic market effectively: The media, the market, the methods. St. Louis: McGrdw Hill.

Hendrix, P. E. (1984). The use of measurement models in estublishing construct validity and equivalent measurement in cross-cultural research. Paper presented at the symposium on the comparative consumer psychology. American Psychological Association, Honolulu.

Hirschman, E. C. (1983). Cognitive structure across consumer ethnic subcultures: A comparative analysis. In R. P. Bagozzi and A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research: Vol. X . Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

Hoyer, W., and Deshpande, R. (1982). Cross-cultural influences in buyer behavior: The impact of Hispanic ethnicity. In B. Walker, et al. (Eds.), Educators conference proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Kim, Y. (1979). Toward an interactive theory of communication-acculturation. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Klecka, W. R. (1975). Discriminant analysis. In N. H. Nie, et al. (Eds.), Statistical analysis for the social sciences. New York: McGraw Hill.

Lebra, T. S. (1976). Japanese pattern of behavior. Honolulu: East-West Center, University of Hawaii Press.

Lewis, 0. (1966). The culture of poverty. ScientiJc American, 215, 19-25. Nakamura, N. (1984). An analysis of information content in magazine advertising: The case of

Japan and the U . S . Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

Journul of Marketing, 29. 1-6.

town University Press. (Original work published 191 1 .)

ogy, 1. 185-216.

PSYCHOLOGY 6 MARKETINGNOL. 4, NO. 2 133

PRODUCT A'ITFUBUTES

O'Guinn, T. C., and Meyer, T. P. (1974). Segmenting the Hispanic market: The use of Spanish- language radio. J o m l of Advertising Research, 23, 9-16.

Olmedo, E. L., and Padilla, A. M. (1978). Empirical and construct validation of a mc~sure of acculturation for Mexican-Americans. Journal of Social Psychology, 105, 179-187.

Powell, T. E., and Valencia, H. (1984). An examination of Hispanic subculRual and regional value orientations. In R. E. Pitts and A. G. Woodside (Eds.), Personal vulues and consumer psychology (pp. 219-230). Lexington,-MA: D. C.

Robertson. T. S . , Zielinski, J.. and Ward, S. (1984). Consumer behavior. Glenview, IL: Scott, Fomman and Company.

Sturdivant, F. D. (1973). Minority markets and subculture analysis. In H. H. Kassarjian and T. S . Robertson (Eds.), Perspectives in consumer behuvior. Glenview, IL: Scoft, Foresman and Company.

Tatsuoka, M. (1970). Discrim'm unulysis: The study of group di&rences. Champaign, IL: The Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The unulysis of subjecrive culture. New York: John Wiley. Wallendorf, M., and Reilly, M. D. (1983). Ethnic migration, assimilation and consumption. Journal

of Consumer Research, 10. 292-302. Weichmann. U. S. (1974). Integrating multinational marketing activities. Columbia Journul of World

Business, Y, 17-24. Wells, W. D., O'Guinn, T. C., and Horn, M. 1. (1986). The Micawber connection. In R. J. Lutz

(Ed.), Advunces in consumer research: Yo1 X l l l . h v o , UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Whorf, B. (1956). Languuge. thought und reulify. New York: John Wiley. (Original work published 1940.)

Yamada, R. (1980). The West and Japan: Comparative studies on expression. G e h n Adovataijing

Yankelovich, Skelley, and White, Inc. (1982). Spanish, U.S.A. Zaltman, G . (1%5). Murkring: Conrriburionsfrom the behuviorul sciences. New York: HarcouIt,

(Monthly Advertising), (February) 64-67 and (July) 64-67.

Brace and World.

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the James Webb Young Fund at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a University of Illinois Research Board Grant to the second author. Request for reprints should be addressed to Ronald 1. Faber, University of Texas at Austin,

134 SUMMER 1987