nationalism and patriotism ethnocentric tendencies

The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer EthnocentricTendenciesAuthor(s): George Balabanis, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Rene Dentiste Mueller, T.C. MelewarReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 2001), pp. 157-175Published by: Palgrave Macmillan JournalsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069515 .Accessed: 08/12/2011 05:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofInternational Business Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pal

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069515?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism

and Internationalism on Consumer

Ethnocentric Tendencies

George Balabanis* CITY UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

Adamantios Diamantopoulos** LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOL

Rene Dentiste Mueller*** COLLEGE OF CHARLESTON

T.C. Melewar**** WARWICK BUSINESS SCHOOL

The study investigates the impact of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism as antecedents to consumer ethnocentrism in Turkey and the Czech Republic. Controlling for demographics, thefindings indicate that the impact of patriotism and nationalism is not consistent across the two countries. Consumer ethno-

centrism in Turkey is fueled by patriotism, and in the Czech Republic by nationalism. Internationalism does not have a significant effect on consumer ethnocentrism in either country. Managerial implications of these findings are considered and future research directions are identified.

*George Balabanis is senior lecturer in Marketing and Strategy at the City University Business School, London. His research interests include international marketing and e-cormmerce.

**Adamantios Diamantopoulos is Professor of Marketing and Business Research at Lough- borough University Business School. His research interests include sales forecasting, marketing research and international marketing.

***Rene Dentiste Mueller is the director of International Business at the University and College of Charleston. Her research interests include international marketing and cross- cultural research.

****T C Melewar is Lecturer in Marketing and Strategic Management at Warwick Business School. His research interests include corporate identity and international marketing.

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. The encouragement of the JIBS editor is also gratefully acknowledged.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES, 32, 1 (FIRST QUARTER 2001): 157-175 157

NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM, INTERNATIONALISM AND ETHNOCENTRISM

At the dawn of the twenty-first cen-

tury, the world is experiencing a concurrent rise in two major forces: nationalism and globalization [The Econo- mist, 1999]. While it may seem odd to

speak about nationalism in an era of in- tensified global consciousness [Ander- son, 1983; Roniger, 1995], nationalism is on the rise in various countries and has

emerged as one of the main issues facing the world [Smith, 1992]. In trying to rec- oncile the paradox of nationalistic resur-

gence at a time of global economic and

technological interdependence, Smith [1995, p. 24] argued that nation-states remain the primary object of loyalty in the modern world because a nation's

"memory is central to identity." Indeed, the quest for a sovereign identity is driv-

ing much of the nationalistic sentiments

today: as insecurities about globalization grow, loyalty to the nation-state in- creases. This helps explain why, at an economic level, the upsurge of globalization has failed to weaken economic nationalism [Nayar, 1997].

Nationalism is a concept that has been linked to both collective behaviors and

governmental policies (e.g., economic

protectionism and cultural isolationism) and to individual behaviors (voting behaviors, inter-racial relations, stereotyping, etc). Although both levels of nationalism have implications for international

marketing, the present focus is on individual-level nationalism. In this context, the dismantling of trade barriers, dereg- ulation of delivery services, technological advances in telecommunications and

improved payment systems boost cross- border consumer purchases by reducing the problems of physical access to markets [Baker, 1995]. What remain to be seen are the socio-psychological barriers that might constrain consumers around

the world from purchasing the now more

easily available foreign products.

STUDY OBJECTIVES AND POSITIONING

To understand how individual-level nationalism translates into economic behavior, it is necessary to distinguish it from other kindred concepts such as patriotism and internationalism. National- ism and patriotism are often used inter-

changeably and viewed as "negative internationalism" [Smith and Rosen, 1958]. However, "patriotism is commitment - a readiness to sacrifice for the nation - while nationalism is commitment plus exclusion of others, a readiness to sacrifice bolstered by hostility towards others" [Druckman, 1994, p. 47]. Internationalism, on the other hand, reflects positive feelings for other nations and their people [Kosterman and Fesh- bach, 1989]. All three concepts are cen- tered around one's general attitudes towards his/her country and those towards other countries. Whether these attitudes also enter into an individual's economic

sphere and can thus explain positive or

negative dispositions towards domestic and/or foreign products is an issue that is still awaiting further investigation. While a number of studies have found that consumers, in general, are favorably biased towards domestic versus im-

ported foreign products [for recent literature reviews see Baughn and Yaprak, 1993; Peterson and Jolibert, 1995], none has examined the impact of nationalistic, patriotic and internationalistic tendencies on such a bias. For example, imagine an individual who holds highly nationalistic and patriotic rather than internationalistic views: would his/her attitudes toward foreign products be affected by this fact?

The purpose of the current study is to

identify the differential effects of patrio-

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS STUDIES 158

GEORGE BALABAIS, ADAMANTIOS DIAMANTOPOuLOS, RENE DENTISE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

tism, nationalism and internationalism on consumers' ethnocentric tendencies, namely "the beliefs held by the consumers about the appropriateness, indeed

morality, of purchasing foreign-made products" [Shimp and Sharma, 1987, p. 280]. We examine these effects em-

pirically in two countries (Turkey and the Czech Republic) and use Shimp and Sharma's [1987] well-established CETSCALE as our measure of ethnocentric tendencies.

The intended contribution is three- fold. On the theoretical front, we seek to

provide insights into the extent to which

political attitudes translate into economic preferences. Specifically, we seek to facilitate a better understanding of the antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism and, thus, come closer to the roots of the construct. As Sharma et al. [1995, p. 27] pointed out, "ethnocentric tendencies in consumers do not develop in isolation but rather are a part of a constellation of

social-psychological and demographic influences." Although previous studies have examined some antecedents of ethnocentric tendencies of consumers [e.g., Shimp and Sharma, 1987], none has in-

vestigated the specific psychosocial variables considered here. We also seek to establish whether the antecedents inves-

tigated have the same relative impact on the ethnocentric tendencies of consumers in different countries. Such cross- national invariance would furnish further evidence on the nomological valid-

ity of the consumer ethnocentrism construct.

On the methodological front, we offer additional evidence on the psychometric properties of the multi-item scales used to represent the constructs of interest (i.e., nationalism, patriotism, internationalism, and consumer ethnocentrism). Given that these scales were ini-

tially developed in countries other than the ones examined in the present study, our analysis offers an opportunity to examine their reliability in different coun-

try settings [e.g., Parameswaran and Ya-

prak, 1987].

Finally, on the managerial front, an examination of the political attitude bases of consumer ethnocentrism can

help decision-makers in both domestic and foreign firms recognize whether nationalism and patriotism will affect the

perceived image and, ultimately, sales of their products in countries where such

political attitudes are on the rise. By us-

ing early cues for anticipating and pre- paring for ethnocentric bias, strategies can be developed that address the roots of such bias, with obvious applications including more effective segmentation and better communication campaigns. Since consumer ethnocentrism is a more

powerful influence on consumer preferences for domestic and foreign products than demographic or marketing-mix variables [Herche, 1994], an understand-

ing of its antecedents is vital for international marketers.

ETHNOCENTRISM, PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM

The origins of the consumer ethnocentrism construct [Shimp and Sharma, 1987] come from the general construct of ethnocentrism introduced as a psycho- sociological concept by Sumner [1906]. Ethnocentrism focuses on a "we group" feeling where the ingroup is the center and all outgroups are judged in relation to it. The ingroup that nurtures attachment and loyalty is, in this case, one's

country. Nations "... achieve personal relevance for individuals when they become sentimentally attached to the home- land (affectively involved), motivated to

VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRST QUARTER, 2001 159


help their country (goal-oriented) and gain a sense of identity and self-esteem through their national identification (ego involved)" [Druckman, 1994, p. 63]. The

strength of these needs varies from coun-

try to country and from individual to individual [Terhune, 1964]. Sumner [1906] suggested a two-dimensional structure of ethnocentrism: an unfavor- able attitude towards outgroups accom-

panied by a favorable attitude towards the ingroup. The consequences of this bias range from the maintenance and formation of stereotypes to the belief in the

genetic superiority of the ingroup over the outgroup. The stereotype formation that accompanies ethnocentrism applies to both negative stereotypes for the out-

group and positive ones for the ingroup. However, formed stereotypical attitudes about outgroups (foreign countries) can be viewed as a "base rate" on the top of which individuals can alter their attitudes towards outgroups with differenti-

ating characteristics [Judd and Park, 1993]. In particular, information that dif- ferentiates a foreign country from other

foreign countries can dilute or reinforce

existing stereotypical attitudes towards that country.

An important question here is whether one's negative feelings towards outgroups rise automatically as a consequence of one's attachment and positive feelings towards his/her ingroup. Adorno et al.

[1950] noted that there is a difference between "healthy patriotism" (love of

country) which is not related with bias

against outgroups and "ethnocentric patriotism" (or pseudopatriotism) which is

accompanied by such bias. Ethnocentric

patriotism is one's "blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncriti- cal conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as

outgroups" [Adorno et al. 1950, p. 107]. However, it has been argued that it is not

necessary for the one to follow the other because "there is no reason to suppose that personality traits associated with love of country are the same as those connected to hostility towards foreign countries" [Doob, 1964, p. 128]. Indeed, Heaven et al. [1989, p. 182] showed that "one might be superpatriot and still not dislike members of the out-group".

This difference between healthy patriotism and pseudopatriotism was empirically clarified by Kosterman and Fesh- bach [1989]. They factor-analyzed data on 120 items capturing attitudes towards one's own country and towards other countries, and identified three meaning- ful factors: patriotism, nationalism and internationalism. Patriotism refers to

strong feelings of attachment and loyalty to one's own country without the corre-

sponding hostility towards other nations. Nationalism (which is similar to Adorno et al.'s [1950] ethnocentric patriotism) encompasses views that one's

country is superior and should be dom- inant (and thus implies a denigration of other nations). Finally, internationalism

emerged as a distinct dimension and not

simply as the opposite end of nationalism, as earlier research had suggested [Smith and Rosen, 1958]. Specifically, internationalism focuses on one's con- cern about other nations' welfare and reflects an empathy for the people of other nations.

In summary, favorable attitudes towards one's country are not necessarily associated with negative ones towards other countries. Consequently, it ap- pears plausible that a favorable bias towards domestic products may not

necessarily imply a negative one for

imported products.


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DIAMANTPOULOS, RENE DETIE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

The construct of consumer ethnocentrism was developed as an economic form of ethnocentrism and encompasses issues such as one's fear of economically harming his/her beloved country by buying foreign products, the morality of buying imported products, and a personal prejudice against imports [Sharma et al., 1995]. Shimp and Sharma [1987] devel-

oped a multi-item scale to capture consumer ethnocentric tendencies (the CETSCALE) and showed that consumer ethnocentrism explains why consumers

prefer domestic over imported products (even when the latter are cheaper and their quality is evidently better). Herche [1992] showed that consumer ethnocentrism can predict (with varying precision across product-categories) consumers'

preferences to buy or own domestic as

opposed to foreign products. Impor- tantly, he demonstrated that ethnocentric tendencies are better predictors of

import purchase behavior than demo-

graphic and marketing mix variables [Herche, 1992, 1994]. However, consumer ethnocentrism's predictive ability of buying intentions varies from country to country; for example, Good and Hud- dleston [1995] found it to be important for Poles' but not for Russians' intentions to buy foreign products.1

Regarding the antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism, several studies have found that males, better-educated consumers and those with higher in- comes tend to be less ethnocentric

[Shimp, 1984; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma et al., 1995]. The rationale

provided for the observed relationships is that females, older, and less educated

people are more conservative and more

patriotic; moreover, as one's income in- creases, the more likely one is to travel

and try more products, and thus, be more

open to imported products [Sharma et al., 1995; Han, 1988; Wall and Heslop, 1986]. Although the impact of demo-

graphics is not the principal focus of this

study, we include demographics in the

analysis to statistically isolate the impact of the main variables of interest (i.e., patriotism, nationalism and internationalism). Thus, gender, age, education and income are used as control variables

[e.g., van de Vijver and Leung, 1997]. In addition to examining the role of

demographics in influencing consumer ethnocentrism, a few studies have looked into the impact of other potential antecedents. Thus, Shimp and Sharma [1987] found a strong positive correlation between: (1) patriotism, politico- economic conservatism, dogmatism, and (2) consumer ethnocentrism. Sharma et al. [1995] found that collectivism, cultural openness and patriotism/conservatism (a hybrid construct) were all significantly correlated with the CETSCALE. However, in both studies, a purified version of Adorno et al.'s [1950] ethnocentric patriotism (or "pseudopatriotism") scale was used - as already noted, this scale is closer to what Kosterman and Feshbach [1989] described as "nationalism". Moreover, in the Sharma et al.'s [1995] study, Adorno et al.'s [1950] pseudopatriotism scale was combined with

Ray's [1983] conservatism scale (a scale

typified by such statements as "erotic and obscene literature should be pro- hibited from public sale"!). The result-

ing conceptual mingling makes it difficult to isolate the effect of (ethnocentric) patriotism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies.

In light of the above, there is consid- erable scope in studying how one's attitudes towards his/her own country and other countries relates to consumer eth-



nocentric tendencies. We explore this theme further in the next section, where

specific hypotheses are put forward link-

ing nationalism, patriotism and internationalism to consumer ethnocentrism.

STUDY HYPOTHESIS

Nationalism. Druckman [1994] showed that nationalists are more competitive, more militaristic, more aggressive and more prejudiced towards other countries and ethnic groups. In addition, nationalists tend to maintain more stereotypical images of outgroups and precipitate exag- gerated national self-images that can re- strain inter-state cooperation, lead to isolationism, trade protectionism, human-

rights abuses of minorities, ethnic violence, terrorism, and, ultimately, war [Sidanius et al., 1997]. Nationalism, and, to a lesser extent, patriotism, are both associated with support for conservative and right-wing political parties, whereas internationalism is associated with support for liberal parties [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989].

Against this backdrop, it is plausible to anticipate that nationalists' obsession with national dominance and, subse-

quently, economic dominance [Koster- man and Feshbach, 1989] is likely to lead them to buy domestic products (in order to strengthen local industry) and/or boycott buying imported products (to avert possible economic dominance by a foreign country). Given that

foreign nations are often perceived as threats by nationalists [Jackson, 1993], the latter are likely to resort to negative stereotyping and/or minimization of the

opportunities available to the threaten-

ing country [Mihalyi, 1984]. Baughn and

Yaprak [1996] supported this view by showing a positive correlation between

general nationalism and economic nationalism. Economic nationalism is a

broader concept that encompasses consumer ethnocentrism together with attitudes towards trade protection, restriction of foreign investment, restriction on the immigration of workers, and restriction of foreign firms and intellectual

property [Baughn and Yaprak, 1996]. Based on these arguments, it is expected that:

Hypothesis 1: The more nationalistic the individual, the higher his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be.

Patriotism. To date, no empirical study has explicitly examined the rela-

tionship between healthy patriotism (i.e., love of country) and consumer ethnocentrism. Feshbach [1990] suggested that, unlike nationalists, patriots tend to take a more cooperative approach to the world. Druckman [1994] also suggested that patriotic attitudes develop early in the socialization process and as a result are very persistent, with the deep-rooted needs served by these attitudes (i.e., se-

curity, feelings of belonging, self-en- hancement) making them very resistant to change. Patriots, in general, exhibit a

willingness to sacrifice for their country and subordinate their personal interests to national interests [Feshbach, 1990]. While patriotism is also related to some of the behaviors associated with nationalistic attitudes (e.g., support for right- wing and conservative parties), patriots are more moderate and do not relapse in the extremities of nationalists.

In relation to consumption, patriots are more likely to see it as part of their

duty to their country to protect its econ-

omy and support domestic producers [Han, 1988]. They are also likely to try and prevent an invasion of foreign products if the latter is perceived to be harmful to their country's economy. Druck- man [1994] suggested that emotional at-


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DITANTOPOULOS, RENE DENTS MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

tachment to one's country might lead to a reduced desire to seek information about other countries and, as a consequence, their products. In this case, the assessment of other nations and their products is not based on unbiased processing of the information available but on stereotypical images of these nations and products; hence, patriots may be un- consciously biased against products from other nations. Thus it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 2: The more patriotic the individual, the higher his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be.

Internationalism. Previous research has shown that internationalism is related to the opposite behaviors of those related to patriotism and nationalism: for example, it has been found that internationalists are more likely to support liberal parties [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989]. However, there is little research on the relationship between internationalism and consumer ethnocentric tendencies. Crawford and Lamb [1982] found that "worldmindedness" positively affected professional buyers' willingness to buy foreign products. World- mindedness was included in the constit- uent scales in Kosterman and Feshbach's [1989] developmental work and is conceptually similar to internationalism. Moreover, Sharma et al. [1995] found that the kindred concept of "cultural openness" was negatively related to consumer ethnocentric tendencies. Cultural openness implies a passive exposure and acceptance or no rejection of foreign culture and people [Sharma et al., 1995]. In contrast, internationalism takes a more active stance focusing on "international sharing and welfare, and reflects an empathy for the peoples of other countries" [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989, p.

271].2 Internationalists are more likely to find morally acceptable to buy imported products as a means of supporting international welfare and the people of other nations. This is consistent with the find-

ings of Baughn and Yaprak [1996] who found a negative correlation between internationalism and economic nationalism. Thus, it is anticipated that:

Hypothesis 3: The more internationalist the individual, the lower his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be.

The research hypotheses, the control

(demographic) variables mentioned earlier and the direction of the postulated relationships are summarized in Figure 1.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Empirical Setting The formulated hypotheses were

tested on two samples of consumers, lo- cated in Turkey and the Czech Republic. These countries provide an almost ideal

empirical setting to study the constructs of interest for several reasons.

First, both Turkey and the Czech Re-

public are economically and culturally different from the countries used in previous empirical studies [Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Herche, 1992, 1994; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma, Shimp and Shin, 1995] and can thus provide a different perspective on the interplay between consumer ethnocentrism and the set of antecedent constructs under study here (nationalism, patriotism and internationalism).

Second, in both countries, the level of nationalistic feelings is quite significant, albeit for different reasons. Turkey has

long been involved in an ethnic conflict with its Kurdish minority [Economist,

VOL. 32, NO. 1, FIRST QUARTER, 2001 163


FIGURE 1 EXPECTED LINKS OF NATIONALISM, PATRIOTISM AND INTERNATIONALISM WITH

CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRIC TENDENCIES

June 8, 1996]. As Calhoun [1993] observed, nationalism is more likely to flourish in countries with ethnic minorities and to be exacerbated in ethnic- conflict situations. As far as the Czech

Republic is concerned, the post-Cold War rise of suppressed nationalism was

ultimately manifested in its divorce from Slovakia in 1993. Its history of domina- tion by foreign powers since 1938 (Nazi occupation followed by 45 years of So- viet control) seems to have made the Czechs wary of economic or political influence of foreigners. Indeed, the xeno-

phobic Republican Party won 8% of the vote in the last election, based on an

anti-foreign, anti-gypsy campaign [Fi- nancial Times, December 6, 1996].

Third, both Turkey and the Czech Re-

public are large importers of foreign products. More specifically, with im-

ports that accounted for 20.3% of its GDP in 1996, the trade deficit of Turkey reached $19 billion [Financial Times,

May 26, 1997]. The Czech Republic faced a trade deficit of about 7% of its GDP (or $4 billion) in 1996, with 56.4% of its imports originating from the EU. Indeed, faced with imports growing at a rate of 15.5% in 1996 [Financial Times, December 6, 1996], the Czech govern- ment took measures aimed at restricting the influx of foreign goods (e.g., it launched a buy "Czech Made" campaign).

Fourth, despite the above similarities, there are substantial demographic and economic differences between the two countries. Turkey is an Islamic capitalist country [Koker, 1995] with a population of 62.6 million and a per capita income of $2,291 in 1996. The Czech Republic is a much smaller Christian country with a

population of 10.3 million learning to

cope with transition to a new economic

system following its recent divorce from Slovakia in 1993; moreover, its per capita income is substantially higher than that of Turkey ($4,535 in 1996).


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DIMANTOPOLOS, RENE DENTTEs MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

Finally, Turkey and the Czech Repub- lic belong to two different cultural clus- ters distant from each other. In particular, Turks seem to place greater value on achieved status and loyal involvement, whereas Czechs emphasize ascribed status and utilitarian involvement [Smith et al., 1996].3

Data Collection

Samples of 303 Turkish and 480 Czech consumers, respectively, were surveyed during 1996; the former sample was drawn from Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, whereas the Czech sample was drawn from Prague. Data were collected by local collaborators using the mall-intercept survey technique [Bush and Hair, 1985] on the main streets and/or squares of the respective cities' main shopping dis- tricts. While by no means perfect, the mall-intercept approach can result in "a sample, which, while not strictly repre- sentative, may nonetheless be relatively free of any systematic bias" [Douglas and Craig, 1983, p. 212].

The questionnaires used were translated into Turkish and Czech by native speakers of the respective languages and back-translated into English by experts of the English language [Brislin, 1970]. Translated questionnaires were subsequently pretested on samples of 10 Turkish and 10 Czech consumers, using the debriefing approach; subsequently, items that seemed problematic were re- worded and refined [Malhotra, 1991]. In the survey-implementation stage, no problems with the administration of the instrument were observed in either country.

Measurement The measures for the constructs of in-

terest were drawn from the literature and have been shown to be psychometrically

sound. All scale items were measured on a 5-point Likert format (1=strongly dis-

agree, 5=strongly agree). Consumer ethnocentric tendencies.

The reduced 10-item version of the CETSCALE proposed by Shimp and Sharma [1987] was used. The scale has been validated in the United States [Shimp and Sharma, 1987], Germany, France and Japan [Netemeyer et al., 1991]; and it has been successfully used in other countries such as Korea [Sharma et al., 1995], Canada [Hersche, 1994], and Poland and Russia [Good and Hud- dleston, 1995].

Patriotism, Nationalism and Inter- nationalism. These were measured through the scales developed by Koster- man and Feshbach [1989]. Patriotism was measured on a twelve-item scale which included items such as "I am proud to be a Turk/Czech." National- ism's seven-item scale included items such as "Generally, the more influence Turkey/Czech Republic has on other nations, the better off they are."4 Finally, internationalism was measured on a nine item-scale with statements such as: "If necessary we ought to be willing to lower our standard of living to cooperate with other countries in getting an equal standard for every person in the world".

Table 1 provides descriptive information for the constructs of interest. The consumer ethnocentrism and patriotism scales are well above the commonly ac- cepted reliability threshold (.70) in both samples [Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994]. Interestingly, although the reliability of the same scale can vary considerably from one country to another [e.g., Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987], the reliabilities of all scales in this study are very consistent across the two samples; thus, any cross-country differences in the relationships between the constructs



TABLE 1

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND RELIABILITIES

Turkey Czech Republic Differences*

Std Mean Std Dev Alpha Mean Dev Alpha 8 (p-value)

Consumer Ethnocentrism' (10 items) 25.920 8.411 0.901 24.024 7.885 0.906 1.266 (.002)

Patriotism2 (12 items) 49.658 7.610 0.850 43.063 7.083 0.816 6.595 (.000)

Nationalism3 (6 items) 18.576 3.962 0.639 18.479 3.647 0.656 0.097 (.733)

Internationalism4 (9 items) 30.621 5.221 0.629 28.837 4.462 0.628 1.784 (.000)

* two-sample t-test, 8 is the difference between the two samples' means scores on this scale range from 5 to 50

2 scores on this scale range from 12 to 60 3 scores on this scale range from 6 to 30 4 scores on this scale range from 9 to 45

of interest cannot be attributed to differential reliabilities.

Table 1 also shows that, on average, Turkish consumers are more ethnocentric, patriotic and internationalist than Czech consumers. However, these uni- variate comparisons ignore differences in the demographic composition of the two samples; the latter also differ with

respect to education, age and income, with the Turkish sample being younger, better educated and earning more. While

demographic differences may be partly responsible for the differences in Table 1, the purpose of this study is not to contrast the two countries in terms of

patriotism, nationalism or internationalism, but to assess the relationship between these variables and consumer ethnocentrism. Given that demographics are explicitly included as control variables in the subsequent analysis, our

procedures "take into consideration the

impact of sampling characteristics such as income and age on survey results"

[Douglas and Craig, 1983, p. 249]. The

specific demographic variables included were chosen on the basis that they had been found to be linked to consumer ethnocentrism in previous studies [Shimp, 1984; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma et al., 1995; Han, 1988].

ANALYSIS

A hierarchical regression procedure was employed to test the hypotheses of interest in a multivariate framework. Two separate regressions were formed (one for each sample), with the CETSCALE as the dependent variable. Predictor variables were entered in two blocks, with demographics entered first to provide a baseline model [Herche, 1994]. Having noted the proportion of variance explained (R2), the scales for the three constructs of interest (i.e., pa-


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANmOS DIAMANTOPOULOS, REN DENTISrE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

TABLE 2 HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION RESULTS (DEPENDENT VARIABLE: CETSCALE)

Turkey Czech Republic

Step Predictor Set R2 AR2 R2 AR2

1 Demographics 0.086** - 0.018** Patriotism, Nationalism,

2 Internationalism 0.150** 0.064** 0.122** 0.104**

Independent Variable b Beta Sig T b Beta Sig T

Gender (1 = male) -3.035 -0.180 0.002 -0.059 -0.003 0.949 Age 0.195 0.123 0.032 0.001 0.008 0.877 Income (?000s) -0.068 -0.218 0.000 0.013 0.125 0.012

University Education (1 = yes) -0.459 0.000 0.995 -0.997 -0.047 0.338

Patriotism 0.146 0.194 0.003 0.041 0.032 0.529 Nationalism 0.113 0.091 0.164 0.683 0.305 0.000 Internationalism -0.092 -0.023 0.682 -0.068 -0.029 0.562 Constant 25.273 0.000 10.822 0.001 Power at a = 0.0001 .980 .998 Maximum Condition Index 10.695 7.066

* p - 0.05

** p ' 0.01

triotism, nationalism and international- fluence of demographic variables is con- ism) were added as a second block. Sub- trolled for. However, although the R2s of

sequently, the change in variance ex- the final regression models in both coun-

plained (AR2) was used to determine the tries are approximately equal,5 in the combined impact of patriotism, nation- Turkish sample, the incremental contri- alism and internationalism on consumer bution (AR2) of patriotism, nationalism ethnocentrism over and above that ac- and internationalism is substantially less counted by the demographic variables than in the Czech sample. This is be-

incorporated in our model. Support for cause the explanatory power of the con- each individual hypothesis was then de- trol variables is considerably higher in termined through an inspection of signs the Turkish sample; indeed, less than and significance of regression weights. 2% of the variance in the CETSCALE is Table 2 summarizes the regression collectively explained by demographics results. in the Czech sample as compared with

In both samples, the addition of patri- almost 9% in the Turkish sample. otism, nationalism and internationalism Prior to interpreting the regression co-

brings about a significant change in the efficients in Table 2, a formal test was

proportion of the variance explained, undertaken to determine (1) whether ex- This confirms that these characteristics actly the same regression model holds in do collectively have an impact on con- both countries (implying that the un- sumer ethnocentrism, even when the in- standardised population regression coef-



ficients and intercepts are the same and

any observed differences reflect sam-

pling error); (2) whether, while not

equal, the regressions are parallel (i.e., are characterized by equality of regression coefficients but with different inter-

cepts); or (3) whether separate regressions are appropriate for each country group (i.e., neither the coefficients nor the intercepts coincide in the respective populations). Evidence in favor of (1) or (2) would be indicative of cross-cultural

consistency between the two countries, whereas evidence in support of (3) would suggest that the pattern of rela-

tionships among the constructs of interest is country-specific.

To conduct the above tests, multi-

group LISREL analysis [Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993] was used. The test for

equality of regressions produced a

highly significant result (X2(8)= 45.272, p<0.001) indicating that the hypothesis of equal regressions must be rejected. The test for parallelism also produced a

significant result (X2(7)= 39.252, p<0.001) suggesting that the less restrictive hypothesis of parallel regressions is not tenable either.

It must, therefore, be concluded that the manner in which demographic characteristics and the patriotism, nationalism and internationalism measures are related to consumer ethnocentrism is

fundamentally different in the two countries. Regarding demographic characteristics, in the Turkish sample, gender, age and income show significant effects consistent with those observed in previous studies (with females, older and lower income consumers being more ethnocentric). In the Czech sample, only income has a significant influence; moreover, this influence is contrary to expectations (implying that the greater one's income, the more ethnocentric he/she is likely to

be). Education is not a significant predictor in either sample.

A picture of similar divergence exists with regards to the three predictor constructs of interest. Thus hypothesis Hi, positing a positive link between patriotism and consumer ethnocentrism finds

support in the Turkish sample, but not in the Czech sample. In contrast, hypothesis H2, postulating a positive relation-

ship between nationalism and consumer ethnocentrism is supported in the Czech

sample, but fails to reach significance in the Turkish sample. The only consistent result concerns the lack of influence of internationalism in both samples (hence providing no support for hypothesis H3). These results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between healthy patriotism and pseudo-patriotism (nationalism) as argued by Kosterman and Fesh- bach [1989]: while both are associated with consumer ethnocentrism, their role in different national settings is not invariant.

More subtle differences in the findings can be identified by focusing on the relative importance of the predictor variables within each sample. Thus, in the Turkish sample, income has the stron-

gest influence on consumer ethnocentrism, followed respectively by patriotism, gender and age. In contrast, the

prime linkage to consumer ethnocentrism in the Czech sample is nationalism, with the only other variable dis-

playing a significant (but much weaker) relationship being income.

In summary, our analysis has established that (1) the correlates of consumer ethnocentrism are significantly different in the two countries; (2) demographics are better predictors of consumer ethnocentrism in the Turkish than in the Czech sample; (3) the hypothesized as- sociations with patriotism and national-


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DIAANTPOULOS, RENE DENTrE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

ism find empirical support but only in one country each; and (4) internationalism does not appear to have an impact on consumer ethnocentrism in either

sample. A discussion of the results and their implications follows.

DISCUSSION

The results demonstrate that neither

patriotism nor nationalism has a consistent influence on consumer ethnocentrism since their effects vary from coun-

try to country. In some countries, consumers are ethnocentric from pure love and attachment to their country (patriotism), while in other countries, they are out of feelings of economic superiority and national dominance (nationalism). Based on Schooler's [1996] suggestions, such differences may be attributed to

historically determined differences between the countries concerned as well as in differences in their institutions that result in different socially-constructed views of reality. In any case, our findings are consistent with the view that "theoretical relationships generally are not true under all circumstances but depend on the specifics of the situation" [Sharma et al., 1995, p. 34].

In Turkey, patriotism seems to be the main motive for consumer ethnocentrism. According to Smith et al. [1996], Turkey is a collectivist country with em-

phasis on group loyalty. Healthy patriotism is, by definition, an expression of

loyalty to one's country and its people as well as a strong motivator on economic behavior. Consequently, Turkish feel-

ings of dominance and superiority (nationalism) do not seem to be fulfilled by taking pride on their national products at the expense of foreign products; hence, foreign products are not seen as

opposing or repudiating their nationalistic feelings.

In contrast, the Czech Republic is an individualistic country with a strong em-

phasis on utilitarian considerations and weak emphasis on loyalty considerations [Smith et al., 1996]. Here, feelings of superiority and dominance seem to find a more fertile ground to translate into consumer ethnocentrism. This find-

ing is consistent with Baughn and Ya-

prak's [1996] study who found a strong correlation between general nationalism and economic nationalism.

In both samples, internationalism was found not to affect consumer ethnocentrism. This does not diminish the importance of the concept. Turkey and the Czech Republic are both in the process of

resolving internal economic development problems and, therefore, currently inward-looking; given their circumstances, internationalism might find ex-

pression in venues other than economic ones (as reflected in positive support for

foreign products). In addition, as internationalism emphasizes empathy with the welfare of other nations, it is con- ceivable that such feelings will be directed towards nations in need and/or Third World countries rather than toward developed countries. Most of the

imported products in Turkey and Czech

Republic originate from developed countries [Financial Times 1996, 1997], and thus may fail to gain the sympathy of internationalist consumers.

Managerial implications can also be drawn from the findings. The results should prompt optimism for international marketers since patriotism and nationalism do not automatically translate into bias for foreign products in all countries. While marketers should not be de- terred by the level of consumers' patriotic and nationalistic feelings when they enter foreign markets, they should make sure that their strategy or products do



not facilitate the switching of patriotism or nationalism into consumer ethnocentrism. They should convey to domestic consumers that the consumption of their

products is not economically harmful for their beloved country and does not an-

tagonize their nationalistic sentiments. If patriotism is the underlying motiva-

tion for bias against foreign products, then marketers may have to change the

symbols of their products to national

symbols and demonstrate to consumers that the product is not a threat to the

country's economy (e.g., through co-pro- duction, etc.). In addition, patriotism de-

velops early in one's socialization and is more difficult to change as compared to nationalism [Druckman, 1994]. Thus, patriotically-motivated bias against foreign products is likely to be more persistent than nationalistically-motivated bias. Therefore, international marketers should take a longer term view on ethnocentric consumers motivated by patriotically- based bias.

If nationalism underlies the bias

against foreign products, then the exhib- ited patterns of consumer ethnocentrism will be more volatile and might necessi- tate continuous strategy adjustments. Specifically, marketers should convey to consumers that they recognize their

group's superiority and that foreign products do not impose any significant threat to their country's superiority or dominance. They might also indirectly try to deflect these feelings away from

products towards other symbols of group superiority and dominance. Possibly, a

de-emphasis of a foreign product's national identity or national symbols (e.g., flags) will be instrumental in this respect.

FUTURE RESEARCH

The small proportion of consumer ethnocentrism variance accounted for by

patriotism, nationalism and internationalism means that their influence as antecedent variables on ethnocentric tendencies is only moderate (at least for the countries examined). One possible ex-

planation for this is that the ability of

patriotism, nationalism and internationalism to generate a predisposition towards consumer ethnocentrism is only activated when other factors are present as well. Such factors can be internal

(psychological attributes) or external to an individual (circumstances, happen- ings, etc.). Two issues are important here and could be usefully explored in future research.

First, the concept of causal attribution could help explain how individuals link the consumption of foreign products with economically harming their coun-

try [Hewstone and Ward, 1985]. The process used to identify causes for economic misfortunes in one's country may force individuals to focus on certain cues (e.g., consumption of foreign products, immi-

gration, etc.) as legitimate causes [White, 1989] or it might be affected by what someone views as "abnormal conditions" (e.g., a temporary steep increase in

unemployment) [Hinton and Slugoski, 1986]. Indeed, perceptions of "economic threat" from foreign competition have been found to be strongly and positively linked with economic nationalism

[Baughn and Yaprak, 1996]. Thus, buying foreign products (causal cue) might not necessarily be causally linked with harm to country under certain conditions (e.g., low unemployment) but it

may become a focal point for causal attribution when conditions change (e.g., a rise in unemployment and the trade deficit).

Second, the consumers' level of moral maturity [Kohlberg, 1984] could be important. One of the main tenets of con-


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTnOS DLAMANToPOULOS, RENE DENTSE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

sumer ethnocentrism refers to whether or not it is morally acceptable to con- sume foreign products [Sharma et al., 1995]. Understanding how different consumers define their moral obligations to their country and whether these obligations include preferential consumption of domestic products should throw light on how ethnocentric judgments are formed.

Four other issues deserve attention in future research. First, the stability of the present findings needs to be established by replicating the study in different country settings (e.g., advanced vs. de- veloping). Second, the extent to which patriotism, nationalism and internationalism also have a direct effect (i.e., not through consumer ethnocentrism) on purchasing behavior is open to question; to date, the behavioral manifestations of these constructs on the economic front have not been empirically examined. Third, consumer biases are likely not to be equally distributed across all foreign products, since consumers' attitudes toward foreign countries lie in continuum ranging from positive to that of hostility [Klein et al., 1998]. However, as the Economist's [1991] map of "loved" and "hated" countries shows, such attitudes are changeable over time. For example, in their lifetime, the British have "liked Germany, hated Germany and liked Ger- many again, in that order" [Economist, 1991, p. 14]. Moreover, many individuals hold less strong views, or no view at all about the majority of countries because they do not really know exactly where they are [Economist, 1991].

Within this context of temporal insta- bility in attitudes and the absence of any feelings for many countries, "general" attitudes towards foreign countries and people seem to be more enduring than those directed towards a specific coun-

try. Since the aim of this study was to examine general, rather than country- specific bias, future research could usefully examine how nationalism, patriotism and internationalism affect country- specific evaluations of foreign products. For example, Rawwas et al., [1996] have found that nationalism and worldmindedness affect the extent to which consumers use country-of-origin cues in their product evaluations (e.g. national- ist consumers tended to use more stereotypical information processing). Differ- ential information about a specific country could either alleviate or aggravate the impact of political orientation on attitudes towards products from that country. This would appear to be a promising avenue for future research.

Finally, the influence of internationalism needs to be revisited since the inability to detect a significant impact may well be a result of the specific country samples examined rather than a general inability of the construct to function as a predictor of consumer ethnocentric tendencies. This is all the more important given the relatively low reliability of the internationalism scale, which may have further attenuated any relationships that may exist between it and the other constructs under study here.

NOTES 1. According to Good and Huddleston

[1995], differences in the stage of the transition process and the quality of domestic products were thought to be the main reason for the Russians' lack of bias against imported goods.

2. Another seemingly similar construct is "cosmopolitanism" [Cannon et al., 1994] which comprises an individual's propensity and ability to seek and use a broader range of information sources and ideas to make decisions. Al-



though, conceptually close to internationalism, cosmopolitanism does not

necessarily register an individual's attitudes towards other countries by them- selves but his/her attitudes towards the information and ideas coming from these countries.

3. Achieved status is described by abil-

ity, skills, effort, and competition which can allow social mobility. Ascribed status is determined mainly by a person's position in society, social rank, member-

ship to a caste, etc. Loyal and utilitarian involvement orientations reflect the na- ture of somebody's interest in associa- tion with membership or commitment to a group or organization. The basic of

loyal involvement orientation is fidelity, emotional attachment and devotion to the group and its norms. In contrast, utilitarian involvement is more based on the calculation of potential gains and pro- motion of personal interest.

4. One item from the original scale had to be excluded as it was neither applica- ble nor adaptable to the countries stud- ied (the item concerned made reference to the "US foreign aid program", but a similar type of program was not available in either Turkey or the Czech Re-

public). A second item was also excluded as it severely reduced the reli-

ability of the scale in both samples. 5. Indeed, the application of Olkin and

Finn [1995] procedure for testing differences in R2s, yielded a non-significant result (z=0.572, p=0.569).

REFERENCES

Adorno, Theodor W.; Else, Frankel- Brunswik; Daniel J. Levinson; Nevitt R. Sanford; Betty Aron; Maria Hertz Levinson & William Morrow 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. 1983. Imag- ined Communities: Reflections on the

Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Baker, T.H. 1995. The Consumer in the Global Market. OECD Observer, Feb- March, 192: 13-16.

Baughn, C. Christopher & Attila Yaprak. 1993. Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments and

Emerging Avenues. In N. Papadopou- los & L. Heslop (editors), Product-

countrylmages: Impact and Role in In- ternational Marketing (pp 89-115). New York: Haworth Press.

& Attila Yaprak. 1996. Economic Nationalism: Conceptual and Empiri- cal Development. Political Psychol- ogy, 17(4): 759-78.

Brislin, Richard W. 1970. Back-Transla- tion for Cross-Cultural Research. Jour- nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.

Bush Alan J. & Joseph F. Jr. Hair 1985. An Assessment of the Mall Intercept as a Data Collection Method. Journal of Marketing Research, May, 22: 158-67.

Calhoun, Craig 1993. Nationalism & Eth-

nicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 211-39.

Cannon, M. Hugh; Sung-Joon Yoon; Laura McGowan & Attila Yaprak 1994. In Search of the Global Consumer. An- nual Meeting of the Academy of Inter- national Business.

Crawford John C. & Charles W. Jr Lamb 1982. Effect of Worldmindedness

Among Professional Buyers Upon their Willingness to Buy Foreign Prod- ucts. Psychological Reports. 50: 859- 62.

Doob, Leonard William 1964. Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations. New Haven: Yale Uni-

versity Press.


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DIAMANTOPOULOS, RENE DENTSE MUELLER, T.C. MELEWAR

Douglas, Susan P. & Samuel C. Craig. 1983. International Marketing Re- search. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Druckman, Daniel 1994. Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A So- cial Psychological Perspective. Inter- national Studies Quarterly, 38(51): 43- 68.

Economist, 1991. Friends and Enemies: A Guide to Keeping Up. The Econo- mist, March 16, 318(7698): 14-15.

1996. The Elusive Golden Apple -

Turkey's West is Eagerly Reaching out for the Glittering Prizes of a Modern Industrial Society, but its Eastern Part is Holding it Back. Survey of Turkey by R. Dowden, The Economist, June 8, 339(7969):1-2.

1999. Where Now for Europe's Right? The Economist, 350(8103): 14.

Feshbach, Seynour 1990. Psychology, Human Violence and the Search for Peace: Issues in Science and Social Values. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 183-98.

Financial Times, 1996. Survey - Czech

Republic: Message from the People. December 6, p. 3.

1997. Survey - Turkey - EU Cus- toms Union: The Economy. May 26, p. 3.

Good, Linda K. & Patricia Huddleston. 1995. Ethnocentrism of Polish and Rus- sian Consumers: Are Feelings and In- tentions Related?, International Market-

ing Review, 12(5): 35-48. Han C. Min 1988. The Role of Consumer

Patriotism in the Choice of Domestic Versus Foreign Products. Journal of Advertising Research (2): 25-32.

Heaven, Patrick C. L., Devi Rajab & John J. Ray 1989. Patriotism, Racism, and the Disutility of the Ethnocentrism

Concept. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(2): 181-85.

Herche, Joel 1992. A Note on the Predic- tive Validity of the CETSCALE. Jour- nal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ence, 20(3): 261-64.

1994. Ethnocentric Tendencies,

Marketing Strategy and Import Pur- chase Behavior. International Market-

ing Review, 11(3): 4-16. Hewstone, Miles & Colleen Ward 1985.

Ethnocentrism and Causal Attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personal-

ity and Social Psychology, 48: 614-23. Hilton, Denis J. & Ben R. Slugoski 1986.

Knowledge-Based Causal Attribution: The Abnormal Conditions Focus Model. Psychological Review, 93: 75- 88.

Jackson, Jay W. 1993. Realistic Group Conflict Theory: A Review and Evalu- ation of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature. The Psychological Record. 43:395-414.

Joreskog, Karl G. & Dag Sorbom. 1983. LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide.

Chicago: Scientific Software Interna- tional.

Judd, Charles M. & Bernadette Park 1993. Definition and Assessment of Accu-

racy in Social Stereotypes. Psycholog- ical Review, 100: 109-28.

Klein, Jill Gabrielle; Richard Ettenson & Marlene D Morris. 1998. The Animos-

ity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the

People's Republic Of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1): 89-101.

Kohlberg, Lawrence 1984. Essays in Moral Development: Vol. 2 - The Psy- chology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row.

Koker L. 1995. Local-Politics and De-

mocracy in Turkey: An Appraisal. An- nals of the American Academy of Po- litical and Social Science, 540: 51-62.

Kosterman, Rick & Seymour Feshbach



1989. Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes. Political

Psychology, 10(2): 257-74. Malhotra, Naresh K. 1991. Administra-

tion of Questionnaires for Collecting Quantitative Data in International

Marketing Research. Journal of Global

Marketing, 4(2): 63-92.

Mihalyi, Louis J. 1984. Ethnocentrism Vs. Nationalism: Origin and Funda- mental Aspects of a Major Problem for the Future. Humboldt Journal of So- cial Relations, 12(1): 95-113.

Nayar, B.R. 1997. Globalisation, Nation- alism and Economic Policy Reform. Economic and Political Weekly, 32(30): 93-104.

Netemeyer, Richard G.; Srinivas Durva- sula & Donald R. Lichtenstein 1991. A Cross-National Assessment of the Reli-

ability And Validity of the CETSCALE.

Journal of Marketing Research. 28(3): 320-7.

Nunnally, Jum C. & Ira H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill Inc.

Olkin, Ingram & Jeremy D Finn. 1995. Correlations Redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1):155-64.

Papadopoulos, Nicolas & Luise A. Hes-

lop. 1993. Product Country Images: Impact and their Role in International

Marketing. Haworth Press. Parameswaran, Ravi & Attila Yaprak.

1987. A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures. Journal

of International Business Studies, 35- 50.

Peterson, Robert A.; & Alain J. P. Jolibert, 1995. A Meta-Analysis of Country-of- Origin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4):883-900.

Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A., K.N. Rajen- dra & Gerhard A. Wuehrer. 1996. The Influence of Worldmindedness and Nationalism on Consumer Evaluation

of Domestic and Foreign Products. In- ternational Marketing Review, 13(2): 20-39.

Ray, John J. 1983. A Scale to Measure Conservatism of American Public

Opinion. Journal of Social Psychology, 119: 293-4.

Roniger, Luis. 1995. Public Life and Globalization as Cultural Vision. The Canadian Review of Sociology and

Anthropology, 32(3): 259-86. Schooler Carmi 1996. Cultural and So-

cial-Structural Explanations of Cross- National Psychological Differences. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 223- 49.

Sharma, Subash; Terence A. Shimp &

Jeongshin Shin 1995. Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators. Journal of the Acad-

emy of Marketing Science, 23(1): 26- 37.

Shimp Terence A. 1984. Consumer Eth- nocentrism - The Concept and a Pre-

liminary Empirical Test. Advances In Consumer Research, 11: 285-90.

& Subash Sharma. 1987. Con- sumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE.

Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3): 280-9.

Sidanius, Jim; Seymour Feshbach; Shana Levin & Felicia Pratto 1997. The Inter- face Between Ethnic and National Attachment: Ethnic Pluralism or Eth- nic Dominance?, Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(1): 102-34.

Smith, Anthony D 1995. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Oxford

University Press. Smith, Howard P. & Ellen Weber Rosen

1958. Some Psychological Correlates of World-Mindedness and Authoritari- anism. Journal of Personality, 26: 170- 83.


GEORGE BALABANIS, ADAMANTIOS DIAMANTOPOULOS, RENE DENISTE MUELLER, T.C. MEL.EWAR

Smith, M. Brewster 1992. Nationalism, Ethnocentrism, and the New World Order. Journal of Humanistic Psychol- ogy, 32(4): 76-91

Smith, Peter B., Shaun Dugan & Fons

Trompenaars. 1996. National Culture and the Values of Organizational Employees: A Dimensional Analysis across 43 Nations. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 27(2): 231-264.

Sumner William Graham 1906. Folk-

ways: The Sociological Importance of

Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn & Co.

Terhune, Kenneth Warren 1964. Nation- alism among Foreign and American Students: An Exploratory Study. Jour- nal of Conflict Resolution, 8: 256-70.

van de Vijver, Fons & Kwok Leung. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross- Cultural Research. London: Sage.

White, Peter A. 1989. A Theory of Causal

Processing. British Journal of Psychol- ogy, 80: 431-54.


nationalism and patriotism ethnocentric tendencies

Documents

std dev alpha

george adamantios

international

consumer ethnocentric

consumer ethnocentrism

buy foreign

cultural openness

ethnocentric