Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance

and Implications for Marketers


Mohammed Naved Khan* and Shamseen Raza Rizvi **

As markets turn borderless and become integrated, we need to understand whether


consumers are concerned about a products country of origin or to what extent nations and
cultures prefer domestic (native) products as opposed to foreign goods. The feelings of
consumers towards foreign products have been, for many years, a subject of interest to
researchers working in the areas of consumer behavior and international marketing. The
concept of ethnocentrism represents a tendency to see an individuals own group as the
center of the universe, to interpret other social units from a group perspective and to reject
those people who are culturally different, blindly accepting those who are culturally similar.
Symbols and values of ones ethnical and national group are seen as objects of pride and
unity while values of other groups are looked upon contemptuously. This perception in
certain cases has been found to transcend mere economic and functional considerations,
and to have a more noble foundation rooted in morality. Some consumers believe it is
somehow wrong to purchase foreign-made products because it will hurt the domestic
economy and cause loss of jobs, and in their view, it is plainly unpatriotic. Generally,
research in the area has revealed that some consumers are prone to being ethnocentric
when evaluating products. Highly ethnocentric consumers tend to make biased judgments,
because of which they over-evaluate domestic products unreasonably in comparison with
foreign products. Consumers ethnic sentiments and national identity have been found to
play an increasingly important role in the decision making process, even in the light of
increasing homogenization and globalization of world markets. Though results have shown
that consumer ethnocentrism does impact behavior of the consumer regarding foreignmade products, researchers have observed that the results are not consistent across
nations and cultures. Thus, there exists a pressing need for replicative as well as extension
studies in the area. In the light of the above, the purpose of the present paper is to explore
the underlying meaning and significance of the concept of consumer ethnocentrism with
special reference to India. As the first step, researchers have tried to explore the ethnocentric
tendencies prevalent among the Indian youth. Keeping the same objective in mind,
CETSCALE, developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) was administered to a representative
sample of students. It is expected that the findings will provide vital inputs to marketers in
dovetailing their marketing strategies and also prevent them from committing the mistake
of imposing perspectives applicable to other cultures and nations to the Indian market.

Introduction
The feelings of consumers towards foreign products have been, for many years, a subject
of interest to researchers working in the areas of consumer behavior and international
*

Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Aligarh,
India. E-mail: mohdnavedkhan@gmail.com

**

Research Scholar, Department of Business Administration, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU), Aligarh,
India. E-mail: shamseen.raza@gmail.com

2008 The Icfai University Press. All


Reserved.
52
TheRights
Icfai Journal
of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

marketing. Purchasing imported products is considered to be wrong in that it potentially


harms the domestic economy, causes loss of jobs, and is unpatriotic. As markets are
becoming more geographically integrated, marketers need to understand the behavior of
consumers while positioning their product. We need to be aware whether consumers, if at
all, are concerned about a products country of origin or to what extent nations prefer
domestic products as opposed to the foreign. Various constructs and scales have been
used in conducting such studies.
The concept of ethnocentrism represents a tendency to see an individuals own group
as the center of the universe, to interpret other social units from a group perspective and
to reject those people who are culturally different, blindly accepting those who are culturally
similar. Symbols and values of ones national group are seen as objects of pride and unity
while other groups values are looked upon contemptuously. This perception in certain
cases has been found to transcend mere economic and functional considerations, and to
have a more noble foundation rooted in morality. The concept of consumer ethnocentrism
has significant managerial implications within the international business context.
In the context of international marketing, the scale that has commonly been used to
measure consumer ethnocentrism is CETSCALE, developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987).
The CETSCALE has been translated and used to assess consumer ethnocentrism in a
number of other countries outside the US (Sharma et al., 1995; Good and Huddleston,
1995; and Douglas and Nijssen, 2002). The results of these studies have been somewhat
conflicting, like correlation with attitudes to buying foreign products was less strong in
France, Japan and West Germany than in the US. Equally, Good and Huddleston (1995)
found consumer ethnocentrism predicting buying intentions for domestic or foreign products
in Poland, but not in Russia.
Researchers have also examined the effect of demographic variables such as age,
gender, education, income level and foreign travel on consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp,
1984; Wall et al., 1991; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma et al., 1995; and Douglas
and Nijssen, 2002). Published studies have demonstrated that the degree of consumer
ethnocentrism varies between individuals according to demographic, socioeconomic and
regional economic factors, the degree of perceived threat from international competition,
how necessary or otherwise the product is perceived (Sharma et al., 1995),
and the degree of generalized animosity towards a target country (Klein et al., 1998;
and Elliott et al., 2003).
In the present study, researchers have used CETSCALE to measure consumers (i.e.,
students) ethnocentric tendencies related to purchasing foreign versus India-made
products. As suggested by Shimp and Sharma (1987), the caveat that has been kept in
mind is that the scale can at best be used as a measure of tendency rather than attitude
because the latter suggests a greater degree of object specificity than what the CETSCALE
Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

53

intends to capture. Attitude is used most appropriately with reference to the consumers
feelings towards a specific object, such as a particular automobile model. Tendency
captures the more general notion of a disposition to act in some consistent fashion towards
foreign products in toto. Reliability of the scale as well as its dimensionality has also
been measured. As far as the demographic variables are concerned, researchers have
tried to map the differences in the levels of ethnocentrism between male and female
students.

Literature Review
The concept of consumer ethnocentrism originated from the more general concept of
ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is defined by the Websters dictionary as an attitude that
ones own group (race or people) is superior.
As applied to consumer behavior, ethnocentrism has been viewed in terms of the
beliefs held by US consumers about the appropriateness and morality of purchasing
foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Purchasing imported products is
considered wrong as it potentially harms the domestic economy, causes loss of jobs,
and is unpatriotic. In addition, domestic products are viewed as superior while products
from other countries (i.e., from outgroups) are objects of contempt to highly ethnocentric
consumers. A 17-item scale, termed as the CETSCALE, was designed to measure this
concept (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). The scale was developed from a pool of 180 items
elicited from over 800 consumers in the USA and was subsequently refined into two
successive studies on large samples. The scale showed high internal validity. It also
exhibited discriminant validity in relation to Adorno et al. (1950) patriotism, political economic
conservatism and dogmatism scales. Shimp and Sharma (1987) also found a shortened
ten-item version to have high internal consistency and external validity.
Suh and Kwon (2002) concluded that consumers in different cultures, who are different
in their attitudes and perceptions, tastes and preferences, and values, still continue to be
different even after being exposed to the massive wave of globalization. According to
Kaynak and Kara (2002), the degree of ethnocentrism may vary depending upon the
region and religiosity, which also have an impact on consumer ethnocentrism.
In the context of Australia, Elliott et al. (2003) found that for the majority of the population,
consumer ethnocentrism was not a major factor influencing the choice of the domestic
product, whereas Orth and Firbasova (2002) found that it was a strong and significant
predictor of consumer product evaluations. In their study in the US, Conrad and
Chakrabarty (1995) found that neither does consumers level of involvement in products
generally moderate the effect of ethnocentrism on purchase intentions, nor does consumers
perception of quality.
A study done in Netherlands by Nijssen et al., (1999) showed positive association
between the CETSCALE and product evaluation, implying that consumers with strong
54

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

ethnocentric attitudes were more likely to evaluate German products positively than those
with less ethnocentric attitudes. This was inconsistent with the previous findings (Shimp
and Sharma, 1987; Netemeyer et al., 1991; and Klein et al., 1998) and might have been
due to the strong correlation between the CETSCALE, conservative attitudes and low
socioeconomic status (Douglas and Nijssen, 1998). CETSCALE was strongly related to
the reluctance of buying foreign products which was consistent with previous research.
They also found the negative link between attitudes towards foreign travel and ethnocentrism.
They also observed that the perceived availability of domestically produced alternatives
had a significant and strong effect. Foreign products are more likely to be evaluated
positively when there is no perceived domestic alternative. They also discovered that
consumer ethnocentrism and feelings of animosity (i.e., bitter hostility or open enmity)
towards a country resulted in reluctance to purchase that countrys products.

Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE


The CETSCALE developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) was found to be valid and reliable
in the US. It showed high internal as well as discriminant validity. Before applying the
CETSCALE to any other culture, it is very important to test its reliability and validity in
that region. According to Douglas and Nijssen (2002), considerable caution should be
taken when using scales developed in one country or cultural context to other environments.
Based on this fact, Martinez et al. (1998) found the scale to be reliable and valid in Spain.
Then, Sinkovics (2002) also investigated CETSCALE for its applicability in the Austrian
context and found that it was well-transferable. Recently, Bawa (2004) conducted a study
and found the scale to be valid and reliable in India too.

Dimensionality of the CETSCALE


Looking at the dimensionality of the CETSCALE, Bandopadhyay and Saevarsdottir (2001)
found that CETSCALE was unidimensional in Iceland. Martinez et al. (1998) also found it
to be unidimensional in Spain. However, Douglas and Nijssen (2002) did not find the
CETSCALE to be unidimensional in the Netherlands. Similarly, Mavondo and Tan (1999)
did not find the CETSCALE to be unidimensional in Malaysia. A study done in India by
Bawa (2004) also yielded similar results.

Role of Demographic Variables


Researchers have previously examined the effect of demographic variables such as
age, gender, education, income level and foreign travel on consumer ethnocentrism
(Sharma et al., 1995; Wall et al., 1991; and Douglas and Nijssen, 2002). Shimp (1984)
and Good and Huddleston (1995) have said that consumer demographics such as income

Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

55

or education level has a significant influence on consumer ethnocentrism. Published studies


have demonstrated that the degree of consumer ethnocentrism varies between individuals
according to demographic, socioeconomic and regional economic factors, the degree of
perceived threat from international competition and also how necessary or otherwise the
product is perceived to be (Sharma et al., 1995; and Elliott et al., 2003).
Although consumer demographics have a significant influence on consumer
ethnocentrism, a study in Russia done by Imbert et al. (2003) concluded that age and
gender were not strong predictors of consumer ethnocentrism. Also, another study
measuring consumer ethnocentrism in two populous countries of South Asia, namely
India and Bangladesh, conducted by Bandyopadhyay and Munir Muhammad (1999), found
out that there was no significant correlation between ethnocentrism and age in either
sample, which incidentally, was not supported by a previous study in Korea also (Sharma
et al., 1995). Bandopadhyay and Saevarsdottir (2001) found that although ethnocentrism
had a significantly positive correlation with age, they could not conclude that the level of
ethnocentrism was different between men and women in Iceland (which was inconsistent
with the earlier studies where it was found that women tended to be more ethnocentric
than men). Philp and Brown (2003) in their study, concluded that individuals with high
consumer ethnocentrism levels who favored domestic products were women who came
from lower socioeconomic groups, were less educated and had limited cultural exposure.
However, Bawa (2004) in her study focusing on India, concluded that socio-demographic
variables fail to adequately explain the phenomenon of consumer ethnocentrism.

Research Methodology
The students enrolled for the MBA program in the Department of Business Administration,
Faculty of Management Studies and Research, Aligarh Muslim University, were administered
the 17 item CETSCALE developed by Shimp and Sharma (1987). The English version of
the questionnaire was administered to 105 students present in the class at that time, out
of the total 120 students enrolled in the MBA program. The questionnaire was administered
in the presence of the authors so that doubts, if any, could be addressed. Out of 102
responses, 96 complete responses were obtained. The reasons for obtaining feedback
from the MBA students were easy accessibility, budget constraints and quality responses.
Moreover, students belonging to the faculties of Economics/Business Management/
Commerce were the most oft-researched group of respondents (Bawa, 2004). Data
pertaining to demographics was also obtained in order to generate a profile of the
respondents.
The following hypotheses were considered for the study:
56

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

H01: The CETSCALE has internal consistency in the group sampled.


H02: The CETSCALE is unidimensional in the group sampled.
H03: Indian respondents are less consumer ethnocentric than comparable samples
from the developed world.
H04: There is no difference in the level of ethnocentrism exhibited by both the
genders.

Testing of Hypothesis
H01 relates to the internal consistency of the CETSCALE. This was assessed by calculating
coefficient alpha, and was found to be 0.8869. Nunnaly (1978) has indicated 0.7 to be an
acceptable reliability coefficient. Also, Malhotra (2005) explains that the value of 0.6 or
less generally indicates unsatisfactory internal consistency. Thus, CETSCALE was found
to be reliable as a result of which H01 was not rejected.
The KMO measure of sampling adequacy is an index to examine the appropriateness
of factor analysis. If KMO is found to be greater than 0.5, then one can proceed with factor
analysis. In the present study, since the value is 0.837, we can move ahead with factor
analysis. Another measure is Bartletts test of sphericity which measures the presence of
correlations among the variables. Because Sig. = 0 (its associated probability is less
than 0.05), we can proceed with factor analysis.
H02 relates to the unidimensionality of the CETSCALE. Table 1 shows findings of various
studies in different regions in terms of unidimensionality of the CETSCALE.

Table 1: Findings of Research Studies


vis--vis Unidimensionality of the CETSCALE
Name of Author
Bandopadhyay and Saevarsdottir (2001)

Country

Is CETSCALE
Unidimensional?

Iceland

Yes

Spain

Yes

Netherland

No

Malaysia

No

Bawa (2004)

India

No

Present Study (2007)

India

No

Martinez et al. (1998)


Douglas and Nijssen (2002)
Mavondo and Tan (1999)

Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

57

If the scale is hypothesized to be unidimensional, then all items should load highly on
one factor. But, the tables shown below (Tables 2, 3 and 4) reveal that all the items of the
CETSCALE did not load on a single factor, as a result of which it cannot be said to be
unidimensional. Thus, H02 stands rejected.
Varimax rotation is an orthogonal method of factor rotation that minimizes the number
of variables with high loadings on a factor, thereby enhancing the interpretability of the
factors (Malhotra, 2005).

Table 2: Rotated Component Matrix


Component

Statement
1
1

0.102

0.109

0.305

2
0.647

0.115

0.442

0.841

0.240

0.159

0.164

0.677

6.858E-03

0.635

6.928E-02

0.513

0.157

0.712

0.319

0.129

0.700

0.256

0.259

1.068E-02

0.608

0.455

0.206

0.169

0.706

9.468E-02

0.191

0.342

0.110

8.070E-02

0.128

0.787

10

0.277

0.292

0.670

11

0.629

6.023E-02

0.243

12

0.284

0.573

13

0.405

0.167

0.147

0.577

14

0.296

0.505

0.275

5.884E-02

15

0.583

0.298

2.747E-02

0.185

16

0.239

5.034E-02

0.768

0.160

17

0.710

0.309

0.127

0.122

2.989E-02

6.898E-02

4.023E-02
0.217
5.065E-02

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.


Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. A Rotation converged in 10 iterations.

58

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

59

1.638

1.261

1.116

0.994

0.835

0.770

0.750

0.599

0.507

0.454

0.412

0.389

0.340

0.300

0.239

0.214

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1.261

1.404

1.766

2.001

2.289

2.425

2.668

2.983

3.526

4.410

4.528

4.912

5.850

6.564

7.419

9.634

36.359

100.000

98.739

97.334

95.569

93.568

91.279

88.854

86.186

83.203

79.677

75.266

70.738

65.826

59.977

53.412

45.993

36.359

% of Variance Cumulative %

Initial Eigenvalues

Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

6.181

Total

Component

1.116

1.261

1.638

6.181

Total

6.564

7.419

9.634

36.359

% of Variance

59.977

53.412

45.993

36.359

Cumulative %

Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Table 3: Principal Component Analysis

2.219

2.231

2.528

3.218

Total

13.050

13.123

14.873

18.931

% of Variance

59.977

46.926

33.804

18.931

Cumulative %

Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Table 4: Component
Transformation Matrix

96

96

0.264

96

0.848

0.638

0.486

0.408

0.436

0.191

0.617 0.717

0.380 0.353

0.110

0.642

0.554 0.148

0.509

Note: Ext rac tion


Method:
Principal
Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.

H03 relates to the comparison of


levels of consumer ethnocentrism in
India with those reported from
comparable samples from research
conducted in the developed world.
Table 5 gives the mean value of all
the items of the CETSCALE for the
present study.

Maximum

Minimum

Component

Statement

Table 5: Descriptive Statistics

Mean

SD

3.39

2.16

4.83

1.98

5.20

1.80

96

3.49

1.98

96

2.26

1.79

96

2.86

1.73

96

2.98

2.04

96

4.27

1.86

96

4.03

1.65

10

96

3.92

2.05

11

96

3.21

1.75

12

96

2.51

1.82

13

96

4.58

1.85

14

96

2.14

1.38

15

96

3.56

1.87

16

96

5.04

1.93

17

96

3.16

1.76

It is interesting to note that the level of ethnocentrism prevailing in India among the
students is no less than that prevailing in the developed world (Table 6).

Table 6: Summary of Findings


of Research Studies Involving University Students
Author and Year

Sample Size

Mean

SD

145

51.92

16.370

145

53.92

16.520

144

50.24

22.850

60

32.02

12.470

Czech Republic

131

45.17

11.970

Estonia

179

53.59

13.790

Hungary

76

43.30

13.760

Poland

172

50.61

14.330

Bawa (2004)

India

103

52.43

16.812

Present Study (2007)

India

96

61.43

31.400

Shimp and Sharma (1987)

Durvasula et al. (1997)

Country
USA

USA
Russia

Vida and Fairhust (1999)

60

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

In order to test H04, the data


was subjected to t-test and the

Table 7: Independent Sample t-Test Results


for Gender

results showed that there was no


significant difference in the level
of ethnocentrism among males
and females (Table 7). Thus, H04
was not rejected.

Discussion
Sociological phenomena have
received insufficient attention
from marketing and consumer
behavior scholars (Nicosia
and Mayer, 1976; and Sheth,
1977). The concept of consumer
ethnocentrism
and
its
measurement via the CETSCALE
helps to close this gap and
respond to the plea for domainspecific concepts in marketing
and consumer behavior (e.g.,
Jacoby, 1978).
The study illustrates that
CETSCALE behaves just as a
scale should behave in terms of

Statement

t-Test for Equality of Means


t

df

Sig. (2-tailed)

0.575

94

0.567

1.159

94

0.249

0.520

94

0.604

0.675

94

0.501

1.239

94

0.218

0.216

94

0.830

1.547

94

0.125

0.974

94

0.333

1.160

94

0.249

10

1.474

94

0.144

11

0.822

94

0.413

12

0.861

94

0.391

13

0.931

94

0.354

14

0.438

94

0.662

15

0.008

94

0.994

16

1.091

94

0.278

17

0.382

94

0.382

reliability. But the consumer ethnocentrism concept is not conceptually equivalent to the
concept of consumer ethnocentrism prevailing in the US, where it was found to be
unidimensional in the original study. However, studies replicated in other nations have not
found the scale to be unidimensional either.
The CETSCORES of the university students from India were comparable to those
obtained from studies conducted on university students in other parts of the world
(Table 6). This illustrates that they are not far behind their counterparts in developed nations.
Though much of the past research in this area is of limited value because of insufficient
theoretical underpinnings and methodological deficiencies (Bilkey and Nes, 1982; and
Kaynak and Cavusgil, 1983), the insightful work of Johansson and colleagues (Erickson
et al., 1984 and Johansson et al., 1985) offers justification for additional, more sophisticated
investigation of country-of-origin issues. The consumer ethnocentrism concept and the
CETSCALE show promise as useful tools for such research. Potential applications include
using the CETSCALE as a covariate in experiments that manipulate country-of-origin
Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

61

variables, and as a predictor variable in correlational studies along with consumer


demographic and psychographic measures and as other potentially relevant predictors of
attitudes, buying intentions and purchase behavior.
The concept of consumer ethnocentrism can improve understanding of how consumers
and corporate buyers compare domestic with foreign-made products, and how and why
their judgments may be subject to various forms of bias and error (Nisbett and Ross,
1980; and John et al., 1986). Highly ethnocentric consumers are probably most prone to
biased judgments by being more inclined to accentuate the positive aspects of domestic
products and to discount the virtues of foreign-made items.
Various issues related to the developmental foundations of consumer ethnocentrism
warrant investigation. The process through which consumer ethnocentric tendencies are
socialized is particularly worth examining. Studies are needed to determine how
socioeconomic, demographic, geographic and regional economic factors influence early
childhood socialization of consumer ethnocentric values, and what role these variables
have during adulthood in accentuating ethnocentric tendencies. Related to this work would
be further examination of the concept of threat and its influence on consumers attitudes,
buying intentions and actual purchase behavior towards foreign-made products.

Marketing Implications
The reliability and the validity of the CETSCALE as a measure of consumer ethnocentrism
reinforces the use of this measuring instrument both internationally and within a specific
country. It provides companies and researchers with a valuable instrument to aid both
with the analysis, knowledge or segmentation of a market at different levels (international
or intranational), and with the designing of marketing-mix activities. The latter would help
particularly in identifying communication keys and message graduation to obtain a good
connection according to the level of consumer ethnocentrism and in terms of the market
winning strategy used by the company.
The scale offers marketing managers a useful tool for better understanding how present
and prospective customers feel about purchasing foreign versus Indian-made products.
The CETSCALE provides managers with an instrument to create a database for marketing
strategy development. Understanding the role played by consumer ethnocentrism in
influencing consumers, may provide useful decision framework for segmentation, design
of communications and for target market selection within different markets, for firms
operating globally. By determining the level of consumer ethnocentrism, more insightful
segmentation guidelines could be developed for both local producers and foreign firms.
The results of this study suggest that strong ethnocentric tendencies are prevalent in
India and the use of made-in-India and buy-Indian themes would be prudent in promotional
62

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

campaigns by marketers. Indian companies need not fear foreign competition but they
should effectively communicate with the target audience as well as dovetail marketing
strategies especially for the Indian consumer.

Bibliography
1. Adorno T W, Frenkel-Brunswik E, Levinson D J and Sanford R N (1950), The
Authoritarian Personality, Harper & Row, New York.
2. Bandyopadhyay S and Muhammad M (1999), Consumer Ethnocentrism in South
Asia, retrieved from http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/sma/1999
3. Bandyopadhyay S and Saevarsdottir K (2001), Ethnocentrism in Icelandic Consumers
and its Impact on the Evaluation of Imported Products, International Business Track,
Decision Sciences Institute Annual Meeting, San Francisco, California.
4. Bawa A (2004), Consumer Ethnocentrism: CETSCALE Validation and Measurement
of Extent, Vikalpa, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 43-57.
5. Bilkey W J and Nes E (1982), Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 13 (Spring/Summer), pp. 88-99.
6. Conrad C and Chakrabarty S (1995), Consumer Ethnocentrism, Purchase Intentions
and the Moderating Effects of Involvement and Quality Perceptions, pp. 94-102,
Proceedings of Southwestern Marketing Association Conference, San Antonio, Texas.
7. Douglas S P and Nijssen E J (1998), Examining the Construct Validity of the
CETSCALE in the Netherlands,W orking Paper, Stern School of Business,
New York.
8. Douglas S P and Nijssen E J (2002), On the Use of Borrowed Scales in Cross
National Research: A Cautionary Note, International Marketing Review, Vol. 20,
No. 6, pp. 621-642.
9. Durvasula S, Andrews J C and Netemeyer R G (1997), A Cross Cultural Comparison
of Consumer Ehnocentrism in the United States and Russia, Journal of International
Consumer Maketing, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 73-79.
10. Elliot G, Cameron R and Acharya C (2003), An Empirical Investigation of Consumer
Ethnocentrism in Australia, retrieved from http://130.195.95.71:8081/www/
ANZMAC2001/anzmac/AUTHORS/pdfs/Elliott.pdf
11. Erickson G M, Johansson J K and Chao P (1984), Image Variables in Multi-Attribute
Product Evaluations: Country-of-Origin Effects, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 11 (September), pp. 694-699.
12. Good L K and Huddleston P (1995), Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian Consumers:
Are Feelings and Intentions Related?, International Marketing Review, Vol. 12,
No. 5, pp. 35-48.
13. Imbert G, Jiddou K, Kumar S, Murillo A and Zhao P (2003), Analysis of Russian
Values, W ayne State University, Detroit, USA, retrieved from http://
www.gerardimbert.com/files/mkt7995_research.pdf
Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

63

14. Jacoby J (1978), Consumer Research: A State of the Art Review, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 42 (April), pp. 87-96.
15. Johansson J K, Douglas S P and Nonaka I (1985), Assessing the Impact of Country
of Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 22 (November), pp. 388-396.
16. John D R, Scott C A and Bettman J R (1986), Sampling Data for Covariation
Assessment: The Effect of Prior Beliefs on Search Patterns, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 (June), pp. 38-47.
17. Kaynak E and Cavusgil S T (1983), Consumer Attitudes Towards Products of Foreign
Origin: Do They Vary Across Product Classes?, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 2, pp. 147-157.
18. Kaynak E and Kara A (2002), Consumer Perceptions Foreign Products, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 7/8, pp. 928-949.
19. Klein J G, Ettenson R and Morris M D (1998), The Animosity Model of Foreign
Product Purchase: An Emprical Test in the Peoples Republic of China, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 89-100.
20. Malhotra N K (2005), Marketing Research: An Applied Orientation, Pearson Education,
Asia.
21. Martinez T L, Zapata J A I and Garcia S B (1998), Consumer Ethnocentrism
Measurement: An Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE in
Spain, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 11/12, pp. 1353-1373.
22. Mavondo F T and Tan A (1999), Reconceptualizing the CETSCALE (Consumer
Ethnocentric Tendency Scale), Proceedings of Australia New Zealand Marketing
Academy Conference 1999: Marketing in the Third Millennium, University of New
South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
23. Netemeyer R G, Durvasula S and Lichtenstein D R (1995), A Cross-National
Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 289, No. 3, pp. 320-327.
24. Nicosia F M and Mayer R N (1976), Toward a Sociology of Consumption, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 3 (September), pp. 65-75.
25. Nisbett R and Ross L (1980), Human Inference Strategies and Shortcomings of
Social Judgment, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
26. Nijssen E J, Douglas S P and Bressers P (1999), Attitudes towards the Purchase of
Foreign Products: Extending the Model, Retrieved from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/
~sdouglas/rpubs/attitudes.html
27. Nunnaly J (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.

64

The Icfai Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. III, No. 1, 2008

28. Orth U R and Firbasova Z (2002), Ethnocentrism and Consumer Evaluations Czech
made Yoghurt, Agric. Econ., Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 175-181.
29. Philp K and Brown L (2003), Does Consumer Ethnocentrism Impact on Australian
Food Buying Behaviour?, Journal of New Business Ideas and Trends, Vol. 1, No. 2,
pp. 24-43.
30. Sharma S, Shimp T A and Shin J (1995), Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of
Antecedents and Moderators, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 26-37.
31. Sheth J N (1977), Demographics in Consumer Behavior, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 5 (June), pp. 129-138.
32. Shimp T A (1984), Consumer Ethnocentrism: The Concept and a Preliminary
Empirical Test in Kinnear T C (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 285-290,
Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 11, Provo, UT.
33. Shimp T and Sharma S (1987), Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation
of the CETSCALE, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 280-289.
34. Sinkovics R R (2002), International Business Research in Times of Structural
Modeling: Is it Really that Simple to Transfer Scales?, Proceedings of 28th European
International Business Academy (EIBA) Conference, Athens, Greece.
35. Suh T and Kwon G (2002), Globalization and Reluctant Buyers, International
Marketing Review, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 663-680.
36. Vida I and Fairhurst A (1989), Factors Underlying the Phenomenon of Consumer
Ethnocentricity: Evidence for Four Central European Countries, The International
Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, Vol. 90, No. 4, pp. 321-337.
37. Wall M, Liefeld J P and Heslop L A (1991), Impact of Country-of-Origin Cues and
Patriotic Appeals on Consumer Judgements: Covariance Analysis, Journal of
Academic Marketing Science, Vol. 19 (Spring), pp. 105-113.
Reference # 46J-2008-03-04-01

Consumer Ethnocentrism: Relevance and Implications for Marketers

65

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi