Cultural Influenceon Proneness to Brand Loyalty

Desmond Lam

ABSTRACT. Culture can influence consumers’ attitudes and behavior.While there have been numerous studies on the impact of culture on themarketing mixes, few researchers have examined the influences of cul-tural values on individuals’ proneness to brand loyalty. Using Hofstede’scultural dimensions, this study empirically examined cultural effects onindividuals’ reported proneness to brand loyalty. The study found thatpeople who scored high in individualism and uncertainty avoidance havegreater proneness to brand loyalty. The implications of these findings onmarketing are discussed. doi:10.1300/J046v19n03_02 [Article copies avail-able for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH.E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Culture, brand loyalty, consumer behavior

INTRODUCTION

Past research conducted on cultural issues has shown that culture canhave a strong influence on consumers’ values, perceptions, and actions(Trompenaars, 1994; Chow, Deng and Ho, 2000). For marketers, es-pecially those who operate in international markets, such influencescan have significant business implications. Cultural values typically canaffect marketing decisions on product development, pricing, distribu-tion, and communications.

Desmond Lam is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business Adminis-tration, University of Macau, Avenida Padre Tomás Pereira S.J., Taipa, Macau SAR,People’s Republic of China (E-mail: desmondl@umac.mo).

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19(3) 2007Available online at http://jicm.haworthpress.com

© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1300/J046v19n03_02 7

While there have been numerous studies on the impact of culture onthe marketing mixes, few researchers have specifically examined the in-fluences of these cultural dimensions on individuals’ general pronenessto brand loyalty. For example, is it possible that individuals strong incertain cultural values are more loyal to their purchased brands than oth-ers? Given the importance of international marketing and brand loyaltyto modern businesses, this area of study certainly requires further re-search. As such, this study was undertaken to explore the influence ofcultural values on individuals’ proneness to brand loyalty. To do so, areview of the past literature on brand loyalty and culture constructs wereconducted to formulate a set of hypotheses relating to these concepts.The next section examines studies conducted on the topic of brand loy-alty and proneness to brand loyalty.

A REVIEW OF BRAND LOYALTY RESEARCH

The topic of loyalty was first published through the works of Copelandin 1923 (c.f. Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Subsequently, there were nu-merous definitions of the construct along with many different measure-ment methods employed. Many of these definitions were operational innature and hence, very few researchers explored the theoretical mean-ing of the loyalty construct. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) cited 53 defini-tions in their review. In the last two decades, other researchers haveattempted to improve and conceptualize the meaning of loyalty.

The lack of a clear definition did not hamper the progress of loy-alty measurement techniques. Researchers began by focusing on behav-ioral measures (e.g., Ehrenberg, 1959; Bass, 1974; Uncles, Ehrenbergand Hammond, 1995; Bhattacharya, 1997; East, 1997; Morrison andSchmittlein, 2001). These measures of consumer loyalty included con-sumer purchase sequence, frequency of purchase, proportion of purchase,and probability of purchase (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). In many ofthe behavioral studies, the researchers examined consumers’ repeat pur-chases under various product consumption contexts. Ehrenberg (1959)was among the first to examine regular patterns of consumer purchases,assuming a stochastic process, based on behavioral measures. Ehrenbergand Goodhardt (1970) extended the stochastic preference models intomulti-brand buying. Bass (1974) agreed that brand choice could be sub-stantially stochastic and presented a general theory of stochastic prefer-ence. He concluded that deterministic prediction (i.e., through cognition)of individual behavior would achieve limited success.

8 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

While these behavioral studies claimed successes in estimating andforecasting aggregated customer loyalty effects, critics argued that thesestudies failed to understand the underlying reasons (perhaps, other thanby random effect) as to why customers behave the way they do. Someresearchers argued that these measures of consumer loyalty are basedonly on the self-report of purchase decisions. Moreover, they do notdistinguish true loyalty from customer loyalty that is often associatedwith consistent purchasing of one brand because there are no otherchoices readily available or because a brand offers a long series of deals,etc. (Day, 1969).

This deficiency of behavioral studies has sparked other researchers tolook into the attitudinal element of brand loyalty (Day, 1969; Dick andBasu, 1994; Jarvis and Wilcox, 1997; Ha, 1998; Iwasaki and Havitz,1998; Bennett and Bove, 2001). Oliver (1999) defined loyalty as a com-mitment to repurchase a product consistently despite situational andmarketing influences. Day (1969) viewed brand loyalty as comprisingboth repeated purchases and strong internal disposition. Jacoby andChestnut (1978) concluded a composite definition of brand loyalty thatincludes both attitudinal and behavioral components. They definedbrand loyalty as a biased behavioral response to one or more brands,which included certain psychological processes. Dick and Basu (1994)viewed loyalty as the relationship between relative attitude and repeatpatronage. More recently, Baloglu (2002) found that truly loyal custom-ers had more emotional commitment to a brand than any other groups ofcustomers. In Oliver’s (1999) dynamic framework, customers actuallyprogress from cognitive commitment to emotional bonding as their loy-alty increases. Apparently, emotive customers seem to be most loyal(Fournier and Yao, 1997; Coyles and Gokey, 2002).

Many researchers now agree that brand loyalty is complex andshould be a multidimensional construct. However, many previous stud-ies seemed to have neglected the impact of culture on individuals’ brandloyalty behavior. More importantly, the topic on proneness to brand loy-alty was explored only by a few researchers. For example, Shim andGehrt (1996) examined the differences in shopping orientation betweenethnic groups and found that White and Hispanics students showed sig-nificantly more brand loyalty proneness than Native American students.They defined proneness to brand loyalty as “an orientation character-ized by the degree to which a consumer repetitively chooses the samebrands and stores” (Shim and Gehrt, 1996, p. 313). Thus, the pronenessto brand loyalty may be viewed as synonymous to the degree of brandloyalty. This definition was similar to that defined by Raju (1980), who

Desmond Lam 9

viewed it as the tendency to stick with the same response over time. Infact, few researchers have specifically investigated the impact of cul-tural values on individuals’ general proneness to brand loyalty. Thosewho did so typically examined brand loyalty as part of their overallstudies and/or did not investigate specific cultural values or dimensionsthat would affect their subjects’ general brand loyalty proneness (e.g.,Kanwar and Pagiavlas, 1992; Hui et al., 1993). As such, this study wasundertaken to explore this gap in our understanding. The next section dis-cusses the construct of culture and formulates the research hypotheses.

REVIEW ON CULTUREAND THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Culture can influence consumers’ thoughts and actions (Herbig,1998; Trompenaars, 1994), affecting their decision-making styles andpurchase behaviors. The concept of culture is complex and widely re-searched (Inkeles and Levinson, 1969; Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars,1994; Triandis, 1995). Culture can be defined as “the collective pro-gramming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one groupor category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 5). In one ofthe most widely cited work, Hofstede (1980, 1994), through an exten-sive study conducted over fifty-three countries, identified four basicdimensions of differences among national cultures. Over the years,Hofstede’s research has received some criticism especially regardingissues on generalization (Yeh, 1988). Still, many researchers adoptedhis works when studying cross-cultural influences on attitudes and be-haviors (Fam and Merrilees, 1998; Liu, Sudharshan and Hamer, 2000;Mortenson, 2002). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were insightful andoften used as the basis for cultural differentiation (Liu, Sudharshan andHamer, 2000). Hofstede (1991) proposed that these same dimensionsthat were found to differentiate among national cultures might also beapplied to within-culture (i.e., individual-level or subculture) studies incountries. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at the individual level havereceived extensive investigation in a wide variety of research studies(e.g., Aycan et al., 2000; Wheeler, 2002). In this study, Hofstede’s di-mensions were used to examine individual-level or within-culture dif-ferences on proneness to brand loyalty.

Hofstede’s first dimension is Individualism, the degree to which mem-bers within a society are integrated into groups. This dimension refers

10 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

to individuals’ attitude towards the concept of self (Dawar, Parker andPrice, 1996). One can identify collectivism when group goals have pri-ority, and individualism when personal goals have priority (Triandis,1995). In collectivism, there is greater burden on individuals to conformto group and social norms (Matsumoto, 2000). People who scored highin individualism are more likely to believe in themselves and do thingsthat benefit themselves. These individuals may be less prone to influ-ence from social/group norms and marketing media. As such, they aremore likely to purchase brands that they deemed suitable for them-selves, irrespective of influence from other sources. Thus, people whoscored high in individualism may exhibit greater tendency to be brandloyal. The following hypothesis can be implied:

H1: Individuals who scored high in individualism have greaterproneness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.

Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which a culture programs itsmembers to feel uncomfortable in unstructured situations such as novel,unknown, surprising, or unusual situations (Hofstede, 1980). Cultureshigh in uncertainty avoidance do not readily accept changes or uncer-tainty compared with those low in the same dimension. Thus, one wouldexpect individuals who scored high in uncertainty avoidance to havehigher proneness to brand loyalty than those who scored low in this di-mension as implied by the following hypothesis:

H2: Individuals who scored high in uncertainty avoidance havegreater proneness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.

Masculinity is a preference for assertiveness, achievement, and mate-rial success. Femininity, on the other hand, stands for a preference forrelationships, modesty, and caring for the weak (Hofstede, 1980). Indi-viduals with high masculinity tend to assert more control over their owndecision making and processes. As such, they may be less influenced bymarketing mixes, social and group norms. These individuals buy whatthey like and stick to brands they like, hence, showing more pronenessto brand loyalty (Hypothesis 3).

H3: Individuals who scored high in masculinity have greater prone-ness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.

Desmond Lam 11

Power Distance is the extent to which the members within a societyaccept and expect that power in organizations, and in the society at large,is distributed unequally (James, 1995). Individuals who scored high inpower distance accepted inequality while those who scored low in the di-mension did not (Hofstede, 1980). In an environment of low power dis-tance, individuals buy what they desire without worrying how others feelor think about them. On the other hand, influences from those within ahigher power distance society may affect the brands individual buy.Thus, individuals in a high power distance culture constantly balancetheir purchases to suit those in their power groups. Consequently, theseindividuals are more prone to switching brands depending on what makesthe others tick. On the other hand, individuals in low power distance cul-ture maintain their independence by managing their own brand purchases(Hypothesis 4).

H4: Individuals who scored high in power distance will be less proneto brand loyalty than those who scored low.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OUTCOME

Sample and Measures

A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of 228 respondents.The respondents were business undergraduates at two public universities inAustralia. The age of the respondents ranged from 17 to 49 years, with anaverage of 21.6 years. Approximately 57% of the respondents were female.

Each respondent was given a questionnaire comprising a number ofitems on issues relating to their cultural values and proneness to brandloyalty (see Appendix). These items were measured on a 5-point Likertscale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Informa-tion on age, gender, and number of months/years spent in Australia wasalso collected from the respondents.

The items on cultural values were adapted from Dorfman and Howell(1988), which were based on Hofstede’s (1966) four main cultural di-mensions (five original items each), and were used by Robertson andHoffman (2000). The items on proneness to brand loyalty (three origi-nal items), the only dependent variable in this study, were developedby Sproles and Kendall (1986) and were also adopted by Shim andGehrt (1996). For preliminary analysis, a number of exploratory factoranalyses and reliability tests were conducted. Items with rotated factor

12 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

loading less than 0.4 were discarded. For further analysis of the factorstructure, the data were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)with AMOS 5.0. The standardized regression weights and coefficientalphas for each construct are reported in Table 1. The final Cronbach’salphas were between 0.555 and 0.778. According to Nunnally (1967),reliabilities in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 are satisfactory in the early stagesof research. Hence, the obtained coefficients were deemed sufficientgiven the exploratory nature of this study.

As a preliminary analysis to understand the relationship of the culturaldimensions to each other, these were correlated. Table 2 shows the correla-tions between each dimension found in this study. Uncertainty avoidancewas found to be negatively correlated to individualism, masculinity, andpower distance. In addition, power distance was positively correlated tomasculinity.

Desmond Lam 13

TABLE 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability Results

No. Description OriginalNo. ofItems

No. of ItemsAfter

Screening

Final ItemNo. (See

Appendix)

StandardizedRegression

Weight*

Cronbach’sAlpha

1 Individualism 5 2 1 0.6030.660

2 0.818

2 Uncertainty avoidance 5 4 6 0.522

7 0.695

8 0.629 0.740

9 0.726

3 Masculinity 5 4 11 0.653

12 0.434

13 0.789 0.778

14 0.848

4 Power distance 5 4 16 0.548

17 0.572

18 0.414 0.555

19 0.420

5 Proneness to brand loyalty 3 2 21 0.7840.663

22 0.591

*p � 0.05.

RESULTS

The influence of cultural dimensions on self-reported pronenessto brand loyalty was tested using multiple regression. All four coeffi-cients were loaded in the same direction as hypothesized (see Model 1in Table 3).

Model 1, on the whole, fits very well to the data. A ratio of Chi-squareto degrees-of-freedom (CMIN/DF) of less than 2.00 has been suggestedby a number of researchers (Hoelter, 1983; Brooke, Russell and Price,1988) to indicate an excellent model fit. For the comparative fit index(CFI), Bentler (1990) recommends 0.90 as a minimum value that sug-gests a good model fit, and Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that rootmean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value at or below 0.05 in-dicates a close fit of the model. In addition, Hoelter suggests a critical Nabove 200 for a satisfactory sample. The results obtained by Model 1showed values better than those suggested by these researchers.

Referring again to Model 1 (Table 3), individualism and uncertaintyavoidance were found to have positive influence on proneness to brandloyalty. Overall, the dependent variable’s R2 was 0.208. To rule out thepossibilities that it was cultural dimensions and not demographics thatinfluenced the proneness to brand loyalty, another multiple regressionwas performed. Referring to Model 2, age and number of years spent inAustralia were added into a second model as independent variables. Theresults showed that despite accounting for demographics, the culturalpredictors still load significantly on the dependent variable. In fact, thedependent variable’s R2 had not improved significantly and the good-ness-of-fit indicators remained relatively stable. In addition, the prone-ness to brand loyalty scores were compared between gender groups(Malemean = 3.345 and Femalemean = 3.511) using independent t-test.No significant difference in proneness to brand loyalty between male and

14 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 2. Correlations Between Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension UncertaintyAvoidance

Power Distance Masculinity

Individualism �0.199** 0.083 0.031

Uncertainty avoidance – �0.415*** �0.148*

Power distance – – 0.724***

*p � 0.10, **p � 0.05, ***p � 0.01.

female (t = �1.422, df = 223, p > 0.10) was found. The results showedthat the predictive ability of the cultural dimensions on proneness tobrand loyalty could not be explained by these independent variables.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this exploratory study suggest that individual’s prone-ness to brand loyalty may be influenced by their cultural values. It furtherdemonstrates that culture can have a major influence on how individualsact and think. More specifically, the findings of this study supported H1in which respondents who scored high in individualism were less likely toswitch brands. Generally, individuals who scored low in this dimensionare more likely to follow group norms. Their brand loyalty behavior mayfollow those of their in-group members and change accordingly. As such,these individuals are more likely to switch brands frequently. However,individuals who scored high in individualism pursue their individualgoals and make their own purchases. These individuals are more likely tostick to their adopted brands regardless of outside influence.

Desmond Lam 15

TABLE 3. Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Effects of Cultural Dimen-sions on Proneness to Brand Loyalty

Predictor Dependent Variable:Proneness to Brand Loyalty

Model 1Standardized

Regression Weight

Model 2Standardized

Regression Weight

Individualism 0.212* 0.212*

Uncertainty Avoidance 0.389* 0.387*

Power Distance �0.202 �0.209

Masculinity 0.189 0.196

Age Not included 0.056

Number of years in Australia Not included �0.037

Model R2, CMIN/DF 0.208, 1.144 0.212, 1.275

CFI, RMSEA, Hoelter 0.983, 0.025, 253 0.960, 0.035, 220

*p � 0.05.

This study also found that people who scored high in uncertaintyavoidance had greater proneness to brand loyalty. This finding providedfirm support for H2. High uncertainty avoidance means less risk-takingappetite and, consequently, less willingness to switch brands that arepreviously adopted. People who scored high in this dimension avoid un-certainty by staying with brands they are comfortable with.

People with high masculinity tend to assert more control over theirown decision-making processes. They may be less influenced by mar-keting mixes, social and group norms. As such, they buy what they likeand stick to brands they like. Hence, one would expect these people toshow more proneness to brand loyalty. While a positive relationship be-tween masculinity and one’s proneness to brand loyalty was found inthis study, it was not statistically significant. Hence, H3 cannot be sup-ported in this study.

Individuals with low power distance focus on purchasing brands theylike and are less influenced by high power group. As such, they are morelikely to stick to brands they have earlier adopted. On the other hand,those with high power distance are more likely to switch their brandsconstantly to suit their power groups. Although this study found the re-lationship between power distance and proneness to brand loyalty in thesame direction as hypothesized, it too was not statistically significant.Hence, H4 cannot be supported in this study.

Few studies have evaluated the significance of cultural influence onproneness to brand loyalty. The results from this research would en-hance existing marketing knowledge and the current literature on brandloyalty studies. It has important implications for companies selling notjust across national cultures but also within any geographical bound-aries. Soliciting brand loyalty has never been more challenging forthese companies. Coupled with increasing global economic uncertaintyand intense competition in the global marketplace, companies have toimprove their business models to not only attract and satisfy consumersbut also to form sustainable relationships with them. A successful inter-national marketer would always seek to understand the cultural modesof the country, which is the focus of its marketing strategies. In tra-ditional marketing, such knowledge about the impact or non-impact ofspecific cultural characteristics can help international managers to an-ticipate potential benefits and problems in cross-cultural interactions(Brodbeck et al., 2002). Thus, an ability to breakdown and identifythose cultural factors that can affect (or not affect) consumers’ prone-ness to be brand loyal will certainly aid in improving marketing andbusiness strategies.

16 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

It is important to note that any extrapolation of the results must be madecautiously given that the current exploratory study was conducted in asingle country and was only represented by a sample of higher-educationstudent population. Future research should include a more comprehen-sive coverage of countries for better comparison and generalization.Moreover, preliminary screening of the measures resulted in the removalof three former items in individualism and the discovery of low reliability(i.e., alpha < 0.6) in power distance. As such, the final results might havebeen affected. These suggest that a review of the culture literature will beneeded to seek better cultural measures, or a re-development of the exist-ing measures is needed for future research. Also, the support of the influ-ence of culture does not rule the explanations of other factors that are notcovered in this study. For example, the effects of past behavior and otherpersonality constructs have not been examined in this case. Lastly, indi-viduals’ proneness to brand loyalty may change depending on purchasecontexts and on the types of product they purchase. Research into theseareas will likely yield a more comprehensive insight into the brand loy-alty construct.

REFERENCES

Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., and Kurshid, A.(2000). Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-CountryComparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49, 192-221.

Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of Customer Loyalty–Separating Friends from WellWishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (2), 47-59.

Bass, F. (1974). The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching. Journal ofMarketing Research 11(2), 1-20.

Bennett, R. and Bove, L. (2001). Identifying the Key Issues for Measuring Loyalty.Australasian Journal of Market Research 9(7), 27-44.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit Indexes, Lagrange Multipliers, Constraint Changes, and In-complete Data in Structural Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25(2),163-172.

Bhattacharya, C. B. (1997). Is Your Brand’s Loyalty Too Much, Too Little, or JustRight? Explaining Deviations in Loyalty from the Dirichlet Norm. InternationalJournal of Research in Marketing 14, 421-435.

Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Javidan, M., and Kroll, F. G. (2002). Leadership Made inGermany: Low on Compassion, High on Performance. Academy of ManagementExecutive 16(1), 16-30.

Desmond Lam 17

Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W., and Price, J. (1988). Discriminant Validation of Mea-sures of Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology 73(2), 139-145.

Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit(pp. 132-162). In Kenneth A. Bollen, and Scott J. Long (Eds.), Testing StructuralEquation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chow, C. W., Deng, J. F., and Ho, J. L. (2000). The Openness of Knowledge SharingWithin Organizations: A Comparative Study of the United States and the People’sRepublic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12, 65-85.

Coyles, S. and Gokey, T. (2002). Customer Retention Is Not Enough. McKinsey Quar-terly 2, 80-89.

Dawar, N., Parker, P. M., and Price, L. J. (1996). A Cross-Cultural Study of InterpersonalInformation Exchange. Journal of International Business Studies 27(3), 497-516.

Day, G. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertis-ing Research 9(3), 29-35.

Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated ConceptualFramework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2), 99-113.

Dorfman, P. and Howell, J. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Lead-ership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited (pp. 127-150). In R. N. Farmer and E. G. McGoun(Eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management. New York: JAI Press.

East, R. (1997). Consumer Behavior–Advances and Applications in Marketing. London:Prentice-Hall Europe.

Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1959). The Pattern of Consumer Purchases, Applied Statistics8(1), 26-41.

Ehrenberg, A. and Goodhardt, G. J. (1970). A Model of Multi-Brand Buying. Journalof Marketing Research 7(2), 77-84.

Ehrenberg, A. and Goodhardt, G. J. (1996). Towards an Integrated Theory of Con-sumer Behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society 38(4), 395-427.

Fam, K. S. and Merrilees, B. (1998). Cultural Values and Person Selling. InternationalMarketing Review 15(4), 246-256.

Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997). Reviving Brand Loyalty: A ReconceptualizationWithin the Framework of Consumer-Brand Relationships. International Journal ofResearch in Marketing 14, 451-472.

Ha, C. L. (1998). The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Brand Loyalty. The Jour-nal of Product and Brand Management 7(1), 51-61.

Herbig, P. A. (1998). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Marketing. New York: The Interna-tional Business Press.

Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices.Sociological Methods & Research 11, 325-344.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984). The Interaction Between National and Organizational Value Sys-tems. Journal of Management Studies 22(7), 347-357.

18 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1994). Business Cultures. UNESCO Courier 47(4), 12-16.Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots

to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 5-21.Hui, M., Joy, A., Kim, C., and Laroche, M. (1993). Equivalence of Lifestyle Dimensions

Across Four Major Subcultures in Canada. Journal of International Consumer Mar-keting 5(3), 15-35.

Inkeles, A. and Levinson, D. J. (1969). National Character: The Study of Modal Per-sonality and Sociocultural Systems (pp. 111-157). In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology 4. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Iwasaki, Y. and Havitz, M. E. (1998). A Path Analytic Model of the Relationships Be-tween Involvement, Psychological Commitment, and Loyalty. Journal of LeisureResearch 30(2), 256-277.

Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, W. (1978). Brand Loyalty–Measurement and Management.New York: Wiley.

James, D. L. (1995). The Executive Guide to Asia-Pacific Communications. Australia:Allen & Unwin.

Jarvis, L. and Wilcox, J. (1997). True Vendor Loyalty or Simply Repeat Purchase Be-havior? Industrial Marketing Management 6, 9-14.

Kanwar, R. and Pagiavlas, N. (1992). When are Higher Social Class Consumers Moreand Less Brand Loyal than Lower Social Class Consumers? The Role of MediatingVariables. Advances in Consumer Research 19, 589-595.

Liu, B. S., Sudharshan, D., and Hamer, L. O. (2000). After-Service Response inService Quality Assessment: A Real-Time Updating Model Approach. Journal ofService Marketing 14(2), 160-177.

Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and Psychology. USA: Wadsworth.Morrison, D. G. and Schmittlein, D. C. (1988). Generalizing the NBD Model for Con-

sumer Purchases: What are the Implications and is it Worth the Effort? Journal ofBusiness and Economic Statistics 6(2), 145-159.

Mortenson, S. T. (2002). Sex, Communication Values, and Cultural Values: Individu-alism-Collectivism as a Mediator of Sex Differences in Communication Values inTwo Cultures. Communication Reports 15(1), 57-70.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63, 33-44.Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demo-

graphics, Exploratory Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 7(12), 272-282.Robertson, C. J. and Hoffman, J. J. (2000). How Different Are We? An Investigation of

Confucian Values in United States. Journal of Managerial Issues 12(1), 34-47.Shim, S. and Gehrt, K. C. (1996). Hispanic and Native American Adolescents: An Ex-

ploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping. Journal of Retailing 72(3), 307-324.Sproles, G., B. and Kendall, E. L. (1986). A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’

Decision-making Styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20(2), 267-279.Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. USA: Westview Press.

Desmond Lam 19

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the Waves of Culture–Understanding Diversity inGlobal Business. USA: IRWIN.

Uncles, M., Ehrenberg, A. S. C., and Hammond, K. (1995). Patterns of Buyer Behav-ior: Regularities, Models, and Extensions. Marketing Science 14(3), 71-78.

Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural Values in Relation to Equity Sensitivity Within andAcross Cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17(7), 612-627.

Yeh, R. S. (1988). Values of American, Japanese and Taiwanese Managers in Taiwan: ATest of Hofstede’s Framework. Academy of Management Proceedings, 106-110.

SUBMITTED: March 2005FIRST REVISION: November 2005

SECOND REVISION: April 2006ACCEPTED: June 2006

doi:10.1300/J046v19n03_02

APPENDIX

INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM

1. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards.2. Group success is more important than individual success.3. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals to benefit group

success. (Discarded)4. Being accepted by the members of your assignment group is very

important. (Discarded)5. Team managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals

suffer. (Discarded)

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

6. Rules and regulations are important because they inform those who areworking what the organization expects of them.

7. Standard operating procedures are helpful to those on the job.8. Instructions for operations are important for those on the job.9. Team managers expect their members to closely follow instructions and

procedures.

20 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

10. It is important to have task requirements and instructions spelled out indetail so that those who are working on the tasks always know what theyare expected to do. (Discarded)

MASCULINITY

11. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by aman.

12. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active forcible approachwhich is typical of men.

13. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is forwomen.

14. It is preferable to have a man in a high-level position rather than awoman.

15. Men solve problems with logical analysis; women solve problems withintuition. (Discarded)

POWER DISTANCE

16. Those in charge should make most decisions without consulting thosewho are not.

17. Those in charge should not delegate important tasks to those who arenot.

18. Those not in charge should not disagree with the decisions of those incharge.

19. Those in charge should seldom ask for the opinions of those who are notin charge.

20. It is frequently necessary for those in charge to use authority and powerwhen dealing with those who are not. (Discarded)

PRONENESS TO BRAND LOYALTY

21. I have favorite brands that I buy over and over.22. Once I find a brand I like, I stick with it.23. I change brands that I buy regularly. (Discarded)

Desmond Lam 21