Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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
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
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.
55
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
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.
Country
Is CETSCALE
Unidimensional?
Iceland
Yes
Spain
Yes
Netherland
No
Malaysia
No
Bawa (2004)
India
No
India
No
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).
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
58
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
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 %
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 %
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
Maximum
Minimum
Component
Statement
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).
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
India
96
61.43
31.400
Country
USA
USA
Russia
60
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
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
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
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
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
65