Global Brands in the United States:

How Consumer Ethnicity Mediates

the Global Brand Effect
Claudiu V. Dimofte, Johny K. Johansson, and Richard P. Bagozzi

ABSTRACT
Previous cross-cultural research has demonstrated a consistently positive effect of brand globality on consumer percep-
tions, attitudes, and purchase intentions. The authors evaluate these effects on three ethnic segments of U.S. consumers.
Drawing on survey data analysis and the estimates of a structural equation model, the research shows that associations
with global brands as a general category vary across ethnic groups. Caucasian consumers show less of an appreciation
of global brands, whereas African Americans and Hispanics show patterns similar to those in prior research. Although
the average consumer views brand globality as an attribute of little importance, the structural equation findings show a
direct effect of globality on attitudes and purchases. Overall, mainstream consumers in the United States are less favor-
able toward global brands than minority groups but patronize them at the same overall rate.

Keywords: global brands, consumer ethnicity, market segmentation, attitudes, purchase behavior

n general, brands that are widely available across evoke appealing global myths (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor

I international markets and enjoy high levels of recogni-

tion across the world are described as global brands
(Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008). Research
2004), and generally have an advantage over local
brands (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004).

on global brands ranging from adidas to Zara has con-
sistently demonstrated their advantages over other
brands. Global brands are believed to engender more
positive affect (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), sug-
gest higher quality (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003),
enjoy greater esteem (Johansson and Ronkainen 2005),
Claudiu V. Dimofte is Assistant Professor of Marketing
(e-mail: dimofte@msb.edu), and Johny K. Johansson is
McCrane/Shaker Professor of International Business and
Marketing (e-mail: johanssj@georgetown.edu), McDonough
School of Business, Georgetown University.
Richard P. Bagozzi is Dwight F. Benton Professor of Behav-
ioral Science in Management, Ross School of Business, and
Professor of Clinical, Social, and Administrative Science,
College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan (e-mail:
bagozzi@umich.edu).
Findings also suggest that consumers in less developed
countries associate global brands with an aspiration
toward the lifestyles of more advanced economies
(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), and consumers
across the world associate global brands with high
quality, a certain global myth, and social responsibility
(Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004). Other studies directly
measure brand globality and quantify its effect.
Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) elicit perceived
brand globality measures from consumers in the United
States and Korea and trace their effect on quality per-
Journal of International Marketing
©2010, American Marketing Association
Vol. 18, No. 3, 2010, pp. 81–106
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

Global Brands in the United States 81

ceptions and attitudes. Using a large cross-country data-
base from Young & Rubicam, Johansson and
Ronkainen (2005) identify the number of countries in
which the brand appears among the top 150 as a meas-
ure of globality and show its positive effect on brand
esteem. In summary, there seems to be a global brand
effect that is both affective and cognitive and influences
attitudes and behavior (see Chaudhuri and Holbrook
2001).
Most global brand findings are based on cross-national
samples and suggest that the global brand effect is par-
ticularly strong in less developed countries (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Batra et al. 2000). The cur-
rent research is the first attempt to identify whether the
affective and cognitive associations with global brands
are the same across different ethnic consumer groups in
the United States. Researching global brands in an
American context is a challenge because a majority of
the best-known global brands are American (e.g.,
approximately two-thirds of Interbrand’s annual list of
the 100 Best Global Brands are usually U.S. brands) and
it is uncertain whether U.S. consumers would exhibit
any global brand effects. They might like Coca-Cola,
Nike, and Levi’s, but these brands might be viewed as
local. Furthermore, U.S. consumers tend to be more
diverse than those in most other mature market
economies, with large ethnic-based market segments.
This enables us to identify potential differences between
Caucasian Americans and ethnic minority markets.
Because of their heritage, ethnic segments such as His-
panics and African Americans display similarities with
consumers in less developed markets (O’Hare 1987;
Schwartz 1987). The goal of this study is to assess
empirically whether their responses to global brands
diverge from those of majority Caucasian consumers
and replicate those of consumers in less developed
countries.
This study represents a market segmentation analysis of
U.S. consumer perceptions of global brands and their
impact on actual purchase behavior. We develop a theo-
retical framework from acculturation theory to provide
the conceptual account underlying the differences
among the three largest U.S. ethnic market segments in
terms of global brand perceptions and attitudes. Over-
all, we observe more favorable attitudinal responses to
global brands from African American and Hispanic con-
sumers than from Caucasian consumers but comparably
high purchase levels across all three segments. A struc-
tural model confirms the stability and coherence of the
82 Journal of International Marketing
cognitive structures underlying consumer response to
global brands across all ethnic groups.
We structure the next sections as follows: First, we dis-
cuss prior research in more depth, covering both global
brand and consumer ethnicity research. Then, we
develop the conceptual framework and hypotheses.
Next, we describe the survey data collection stage and
present sample characteristics. This is followed by an
analysis of U.S. consumers’ associations with the global
brand construct and an assessment of the degree to
which previous literature findings employing cross-
national samples are replicated. This leads to the devel-
opment and estimation of a structural equation model
designed to test the cognitive consistency among the
uncovered global brand beliefs, attitudes, and brand
choices. The final section summarizes and discusses the
results and concludes with an outline of managerial
implications and suggested avenues for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Global Branding Research
Although the practitioner press on global brands is sig-
nificant—and branding in general has attracted a vast
amount of attention in recent years (see Keller 2007)—
academic research on global brands is more limited.
Roberts and Cayla’s (2009) review of the global brand
literature suggests that a reason for this is the problem
of operationalization. Defining the “global brand”
poses conceptual and measurement problems. Although
most agree that recognition and availability are the key
factors, academic work tends to define “global” in
terms of consumer perceptions, whereas practitioners
typically define it as a matter of actual reach and avail-
ability (e.g., ACNielsen 2001). As a result, published
articles on the topic have shown results that are not
always consistent.
In a cross-national effort to uncover consumers’ associa-
tions with global brands, Holt, Quelch, and Taylor
(2004) identify four main features of the global brand
construct: quality signal, global myth, social responsibil-
ity, and American values. They then employ these dimen-
sions, developed from focus group findings in different
nations, in a survey administered in 12 widely different
countries, including the United States, the United King-
dom, Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, and Turkey. The survey
covers several product categories and elicits responses to
16 global brands, including Nike, Mercedes-Benz,
Nokia, Nestlé, and BP. Averaging across brands and
countries, the study finds that quality is the main reason
for preferring a global brand (44%), followed by global
myth (12%) and social responsibility (8%), with
approximately one-third of the preference variance left
unexplained. American values were not a significant fac-
tor in choice.
What consumers associate cognitively with global
brands as a general concept has also been researched by
Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen (2008). Using a
U.S.-based sample, they show that global brands are
viewed as widely available, well recognized, standard-
ized, more powerful, more cosmopolitan, and subject to
more stringent social responsibility standards than other
brands. Other characteristics, including higher quality,
were not uniformly associated with global brands but
varied contingent on consumers’ reported attitudes. For
example, Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen did not
find the higher-quality signal from global brands that
Holt, Quelch, and Taylor (2004) previously uncovered
among U.S. consumers.
Given the relative paucity of research on the topic, it is
not yet clear whether consumers actually look for global
brands or local brands. Despite the preoccupation with
these brands in the academic and managerial literature,
none of the current customer-based brand equity data-
bases (e.g., Young & Rubicam’s BrandAsset Valuator,
Interbrand’s 100 Best, EquiTrend, Millward-Brown’s
BrandZ) measure the degree to which a brand is per-
ceived as global or local. As Roberts and Cayla (2009,
p. 352) summarize in their review of the global brand-
ing literature, “there is still little research investigating
how consumers come to think of certain brands as
global.”
The research on the effects of global brands on attitude
and behavior tends to measure the perceived globalness
of a brand directly, focusing mainly on wide reach and
recognition. Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) were
the first to indicate that globally positioned brands
might be more attractive than local brands. Their study
documents how global brands may be especially suc-
cessful in less developed countries. The explanation is
that “consumers in these markets may admire the ‘eco-
nomic center’ and believe that production technologies
in their own countries are less advanced; ownership of
brands from the West increases the owner’s status in
many developing countries” (Alden, Steenkamp, and
Batra 1999, p. 84). This does not necessarily mean that
consumers in these countries are universally aspiring
toward the advanced economies. For example, Kwak,
Jaju, and Larsen (2006) show that ethnocentric and
antiforeign/antiglobal attitudes exist in some segments
even in these countries.
Batra and colleagues (2000) find similar evidence that
developing countries’ consumers view nonlocal (i.e., for-
eign) brands as preferable to local brands. They show
how these consumers aspire to a greater global commu-
nity and, in the process, downgrade their own brands
relative to global brands. As Holt, Quelch, and Taylor
(2004) also document, the aspirational factor seems to
be salient in these countries.
Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) find that perceived
globality (using the equivalent term “globalness”) posi-
tively affects both perceived brand quality and prestige.
Drawing on U.S. and Korean samples, the study con-
trols directly for the possible impact of a strong local
brand, to help assess the differential effect from global-
ness. The results suggest that brand globality has a
stronger total effect than the local brand value, even
when the local brand is comparably strong.
Using the Young & Rubicam BrandAsset Valuator data,
Johansson and Ronkainen (2004) demonstrate that
brands deemed as more global (measured as the number
of countries in which it is listed among the top 150
brands) have higher levels of esteem. Coupled with
Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden’s (2003) findings on the
prestige of global brands and Dimofte, Johansson, and
Ronkainen’s (2008) findings on status, the evidence sug-
gests that, in general, global brands are perceived as
having more of an affective cachet than other brands.
However, a few articles do suggest that local brands can
command stronger consumer allegiance than global
brands. For example, Schuiling and Kapferer (2004) use
Young & Rubicam data on brands in the European mar-
kets to show that in mature markets, local brands are
often rated higher in terms of affinity and quality than
global brands. Kapferer (e.g., 1997, 2005) has several
publications that emphasize the strengths of local
brands. Although these writings rely mostly on anec-
dotal evidence, it is possible that in more mature mar-
kets, the aspirational characteristics of the global brand
are less salient.
Ethnic Groups in the United States
The term “ethnic groups” refers to “broad groupings of
individuals on the basis of both race and culture of ori-
Global Brands in the United States 83
gin” (Phinney 1996, p. 919). In the social psychology
literature, it is common to distinguish three aspects of
ethnicity: (1) cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors of
groups; (2) the strength of ethnic identity claimed by
group members; and (3) the experiences associated with
minority status, such as prejudice and powerlessness
(Phinney 1996). Our main concern here is the first of
these aspects.
The majority Caucasian population in the United States
is typically regarded as differing from minority groups
(e.g., Berkson 1969; Huntington 2004). For example, in
terms of culture, Caucasians emphasize social independ-
ence, whereas African American, Hispanic, and Asian
minorities all emphasize interdependence and an orienta-
tion toward the group (Huntington 2004). Pollit’s (1994)
research suggests similarities between African American
and Hispanic children and those in developing countries,
a parallel that does not apply to Caucasian children.
Other research finds that American identity, or the sense
of being American, strongly correlates with self-esteem
for white adolescents but not for African American and
Latino groups (Phinney, Cantu, and Kurtz 1997).
Research in academic and practitioner marketing jour-
nals addressing differences among American ethnic
groups is not new (e.g., Bergier 1986; Deshpandé,
Hoyer, and Donthu 1986). A reason is that minority
groups constitute the main drivers of population growth
in the United States. For example, in 2004, the U.S.
Census Bureau estimated that Hispanics accounted for
almost half the total U.S. population’s annual growth
(Bernstein 2004). Minority groups are younger on aver-
age than the rest of the U.S. population and thus are
attractive to marketers.
The U.S. Census Bureau currently employs a five-group
ethnic classification of the U.S. population: Hispanic,
non-Hispanic white, black, American Indian/Alaska
Native, and Asian/Pacific Islander. For marketing pur-
poses, it is common to distinguish three minority ethnic
groups: African American, Hispanic, and Asian (e.g.,
Solomon 2008, pp. 526–31). In this research, we limit
ourselves to the African American and Hispanic seg-
ments. They are substantial minority markets in the
United States, with roughly 13% and 15% of the total
population of 305 million in 2008, respectively, accord-
ing to the U.S. Census Bureau (2010). The Asian group
is significantly smaller at about 4.5%, with a more
diverse cultural background (e.g., including immigrants
from India, South Korea, Iran, and the Philippines) and
higher family income. Whereas the median household
84 Journal of International Marketing
income in the United States was $48,201 in 2006, the
African American average stood at $31,969 and the
Hispanic at $37,781 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009). In con-
trast, the smaller Asian ethnic group recorded a much
higher median income of $64,238.
The African American segment has long been of special
interest to marketers, with products adapted for their
special needs, especially in cosmetics, personal care prod-
ucts, food, and print media (e.g., O’Hare 1987; Pitts et
al. 1989). Advertising and promotional efforts are also
routinely designed for the black market by automobile
companies and other manufacturers (Halliday 2000).
Green (1995) finds that African American and Anglo
American consumers react differently to various sales
promotions (e.g., coupon offers, product displays), sug-
gesting that the two segments have distinct response pat-
terns to marketing stimuli. More important for our pur-
poses, a comparative study of African American and
Caucasian consumers shows that in terms of their mar-
ketplace socialization, the former group has more posi-
tive attitudes toward advertising and reports greater tele-
vision exposure (Bush, Smith, and Martin 1999).
The Hispanic market is a fast-growing segment, with
young consumers and high levels of discount store
patronage (Gardyn and Fetto 2003). However, their
income is increasing rapidly, and coupled with the fact
that this minority has now surpassed the African Ameri-
can segment in size, it is fast becoming a highly attractive
market segment. For our purposes, it is important to
note that the Hispanic segment exhibits a strong attach-
ment to its traditional culture and the native language.
Thus, Valencia (1989) argues that Hispanic and white
consumer groups have different value orientations, the
former closely reflecting the joint Latin cultural heritage.
Although their home countries are racially heterogeneous
with varying proportions of black, native Indians, and
other groups, Hispanics share linguistic and cultural
characteristics that are clearly distinct from those
describing the Caucasian majority.
Deshpandé, Hoyer, and Donthu (1986) similarly show
that though differences in ethnic identification exist
within the Hispanic segment, overall, the group displays
systematic consumption-related differences from Cau-
casians. For example, Hispanics place more reliance on
commercial sources of advertising and tend to be more
brand loyal (Deshpandé, Hoyer, and Donthu 1986). This
has affected their acceptance of well-known brands in
the marketplace positively, as Donthu and Cherian
(1994) find. Hispanic consumers also resemble African
Americans in terms of looking for bigger, national
brands relative to smaller, local ones “because of a desire
to impress others” (Wilkes and Valencia 1986, p. 252).
Some research involves direct comparisons of minority
segments in advanced countries with consumers in
the home country. Gentry, Jun, and Tansuhaj (1995) find
that conceptual models describing the consumer behav-
ior of ethnic groups in the United States apply to the
consumers in countries from where the immigrants came.
For example, Mexican American consumers are “more
akin to consumers in Mexico than to the typical
Caucasian American” (Gentry, Jun, and Tansuhaj 1995,
p. 137). Similarly, Darley and Johnson (1993) show
how the African American marketplace behavior and
attitudes toward advertising reflect those observed in less
developed countries in Africa and Asia, including more
positive attitude toward the globalization process.
Thorelli (1981) describes a consumerism life-cycle pat-
tern theory according to which responses to marketing-
related variables are inversely related to the level of eco-
nomic development. At an early stage, consumer
responses are basically positive, but as economic matu-
rity is reached, the responses tend to become more skep-
tical and averse to what is perceived as manipulation.
According to the theory, the minority ethnic segments
addressed here are likely finding themselves at an earlier
stage of the consumerism life cycle and have yet to
develop the more radical, negative attitudes toward mar-
keting that Caucasian consumers in developed countries
evidence (see Thompson and Arsel 2004).
The French and English consumer subcultures in Canada
have also been studied extensively. This literature sup-
ports the argument that even within advanced economies,
ethnic differences can highlight distinct patterns of con-
sumer response to marketing variables. For example,
Schaninger, Bourgeois, and Buss (1985) find that the
French- and English-speaking Canadians differ in terms
of a variety of consumption behaviors traced directly to
the French and English heritage of these cultural sub-
groups. Bergier (1986) shows how Canadian consumers
can reliably be grouped into distinct segments by statisti-
cal clustering algorithms. Presaging our study, Schaninger,
Bourgeois, and Buss (1985) suggest that a similar ethnic
segmentation applies in the United States between Cau-
casian consumers on the one hand and African American
and Hispanic consumers on the other hand.
It seems clear that ethnic differences in the United States
reflect the cultural heritage from the home countries
associated with the respective ethnic subgroups. There-
fore, our basic conceptual proposition is that previous
findings regarding global brands in less developed coun-
tries carry over into similar attitudes and behaviors
among minority groups toward global brands in the
United States.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
Defining a Global Brand
Following Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen (2008),
we define a global brand as a brand that is widely avail-
able and universally recognized. It is a perceptual con-
struct and therefore is likely to differ across individuals.
What the construct means to the individual consumer
depends on his or her knowledge of and experience with
actual brands. From the knowledge and experience with
specific brands, the consumer infers what characterizes
a global brand, indicating that the image of a global
brand is a more abstract concept than the image of a
specific brand. This is the conceptualization implicit in
Holt, Quelch, and Taylor’s (2004) study, which captures
the meaning of a global brand by averaging consumer
responses across a selection of 16 global brands.
In principle, the global brand construct can vary in
degree, so a brand can be more or less global (see
Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). However, in this
study, we follow the common use of the construct—that
is, simply to characterize (or label) a brand that is per-
ceived to be widely available and recognized as global.
The study traces the affective and cognitive associations
that consumers from different ethnic backgrounds have
with the construct and how they respond to these
associations.
Global Brands and Ethnicity
The theoretical framework linking the global brand
associations to consumer attitudes and behavior draws
on the existing literature in social-psychological accul-
turation theory (e.g., Berkson 1969; LaFromboise, Cole-
man, and Gerton 1993; Padilla and Perez 2003). We
propose that the two ethnic minorities considered—
African Americans and Hispanics—face a fundamental
value conflict. On the one hand, they take pride in their
historical roots and therefore draw on their heritage for
guidance in their current lives, including their consumer
social identities. On the other hand, they naturally
Global Brands in the United States 85
aspire to belong to the mainstream of the society in
which they live. The conflict arises because their roots
are set in a different culture from where they live. This
conflict afflicts any immigrant to the United States to a
greater or lesser degree (e.g., LaFromboise, Coleman,
and Gerton 1993). Over time, as the United States has
developed a Caucasian mainstream culture, the conflict
for Caucasians has become less severe than for other
groups. However, more recent immigrants and other
ethnic groups that have stayed close to their roots tend
to have a stronger sense of such a conflict (e.g., Padilla
and Perez 2003). As Phinney (1996, p. 924) describes,
differences across groups are partly due to “varying his-
torical experiences … including slavery, internment,
relocation, and immigrant or refugee status.” It is a
question of individual identity, of “who you are,” as
some writers have emphasized (e.g., Huntington 2004).
It is generally accepted that consumption behavior, espe-
cially a conspicuous brand choice, is to some extent
reflective of individual identity and social aspirations.
The original Veblen (1899) treatment of conspicuous
consumption as expression of social standing was the
first to bring this out, and current branding literature
explicitly connects brands to consumer identity and need
for self-expression (e.g., Holt 2004). Similarly,
Askegaard, Arnould, and Kjeldgaard (2005, p. 168) find
that “immigrant consumers use products and consump-
tion practices to negotiate differences between cultures
while forging contingent identities derived from the dif-
ferences.” Thus, choice of brand, especially for product
categories with social visibility, constitutes an expression
of identity and achievement. We suggest that the global
brand aspirational effect uncovered by researchers such
as Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) represents this
kind of expression, and we propose that the same
expression of aspiration might be at work among the
two minority ethnic groups studied herein.
Given the demonstrations of perceived social cachet for
global brands in the literature, it is likely that global
brands will be particularly attractive as self-expressive
markers and identity forgers. They are well known and
widely recognized and, thus, more adept and effective at
serving a social function. They should be particularly
useful among minority consumers who aspire to greater
recognition and a crystallization of their particular
social identity. They may not be as representative as a
more local brand of the consumers’ ethnic heritage and
therefore will possibly create a conflict in the con-
sumers’ minds that needs to be negotiated (see
Askegaard, Arnould, and Kjeldgaard 2005). However, it
86 Journal of International Marketing
is arguable that compared with Caucasian consumers,
the aspirational aspect will be greater for minority con-
sumers. The latter consumers will have less need for the
aspirational aspects of global brands and instead may
find local brands to be equally or even more attractive.
To connect these global brand associations to attitude
and behavior, we draw on cognitive consistency theory
(Festinger 1957). The basic proposition is that con-
sumers’ attitudes and purchase behavior toward global
brands will be positively related to their global brand
associations (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). In general, con-
sumers will form attitudes toward brands based on their
beliefs about the branded products, and they will exhibit
purchasing behavior (as moderated by market factors)
in accordance with their attitudes. Actual purchase
behavior and choices of brands depend on basic market
factors, such as prices, product features, and availability.
Consumer demographics—including income, household
size, and age—are also likely determinants of individual
choices. In this sense, ethnicity is not a directly causal
variable. The proposition of cognitive consistency is
simply that consumers will act in ways that appear
rational given their stated beliefs and attitudes about
global brands. Moreover, these individual beliefs, atti-
tudes, and behaviors are not formed independently but
are mediated by ethnic background.
Hypotheses
We first introduce a general hypothesis about the
strength of globality as a brand choice criterion. Judging
from the literature, the globality of a brand is not neces-
sarily an important attribute. However, because global
brands are more widely known and recognized than
other brands, they are more effective signals for social
identification purposes. This is particularly important
for ethnic minorities. Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H1: African American and Hispanic consumers
will find the globality of a brand to be more
important than will Caucasian consumers.
As the literature review suggests, the attitudes toward
advertising, brands, and marketing in general in less
developed countries are more favorable than in
advanced markets. The general attitude toward globali-
zation in these countries is generally more positive as
well. This represents the aspirational aspect of globali-
zation and suggests a more positive attitude toward
global brands. These findings should similarly hold for
African Americans and Hispanics in the United States,
suggesting that they are more positive toward global
brands than Caucasian consumers. Thus, we formally
hypothesize the following:
H2: African American and Hispanic consumers
will have more favorable attitudes toward
global brands than Caucasian consumers.
In line with the cognitive consistency model, this posi-
tive attitude reflects certain beliefs about global brands.
As reviewed previously, prior research suggests that
there are certain perceived benefits from global brands.
They might offer more status or prestige, be perceived as
offering high quality, be more socially responsible, or
offer a cosmopolitan aura. Not enough evidence or
theory exists to suggest more precise hypotheses regard-
ing these beliefs; therefore, we simply propose that the
two ethnic groups under investigation will have more
positive beliefs than Caucasian consumers about global
brands. Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H3: Compared with Caucasian consumers,
African American and Hispanic consumers
will perceive global brands as providing more
positive benefits.
The consistency model should apply to all three sub-
groups, such that the consumption behavior evidenced
in the marketplace will correspond to the beliefs and
attitudes reported. That is, the rate of purchases of
global brands for the Caucasian group should be lower
than that of either the African American or the Hispanic
consumers. Given the expected lower beliefs and attitu-
dinal favorability ratings, Caucasian consumers should
show lower purchase levels of global brands (when dif-
ferences in market availability and prices are controlled
for). Thus, we hypothesize the following:
H4: Caucasian consumers buy global brands at a
lower rate than either African American or
Hispanic consumers, all else being equal.
We do not propose any specific hypotheses pertaining to
differences between African American and Hispanic
consumers. There are undoubtedly numerous differ-
ences between the segments, but none with obvious rele-
vance to global brands. Furthermore, previous research
has found similarities between the two segments in over-
all measures (e.g., Gardyn and Fetto 2003; Solomon
2008).
Our final hypothesis is that these two ethnic groups as
well as the Caucasian majority exhibit cognitively con-
sistent links among beliefs, attitudes, and purchase
behavior. In terms of the structural relationships, the
proposition is that differences in attitudes and behavior
derive from differences in the salient beliefs. Formally,
we hypothesize the following:
H5: The estimated coefficients linking global
brand beliefs, attitudes, and purchase behav-
ior will be the same for the African American,
Hispanic, and Caucasian ethnic groups.
DATA COLLECTION
We drew a survey sample from an online panel of more
than three million consumers across the United States in
early 2008. The respondents were solicited from the
panel through an e-mail message from the panel opera-
tor providing the URL address to the survey. The mes-
sage specified how long the questionnaire would take to
complete but not the particular topic involved. As is
typical for these kinds of panels, members were paid by
accumulating points through advertising exposure and
survey participation. The panel operator monitored the
time spent answering a questionnaire and screened out
potential “cheaters,” who may simply be browsing the
survey indiscriminately, without paying attention to the
items.
Item Development
To derive measures of global brand beliefs that drive
attitudes and behavior, we drew on Holt, Quelch, and
Taylor’s (2004) survey research, the Young & Rubicam
data that Johansson and Ronkainen (2005) analyze, and
Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen’s (2008) recent
work. We used the resulting items to augment a set of
items used in general brand research. The aim was
to identify the associations that represent specific
benefits pertaining to global brands. Following Keller
(1993) and Hsieh (2002), we distinguished three types
of benefit associations: functional, symbolic, and
experiential. Functional benefits refer to a brand’s
ability to solve basic consumer problems (e.g., quality,
value). Experiential benefits refer to the sensory
pleasure that consumers extract from the brand
(e.g., excitement, style). Finally, symbolic benefits refer
to the less tangible aspects of a brand’s equity (e.g., more
ethical, environmentally friendly).
Global Brands in the United States 87
We then formulated the items as comparative, posing
global brands as having more or fewer benefits than
other brands. Thus, for example, a functional benefit
such as quality would be stated as “Global brands have
higher quality than other brands.” Similarly, a symbolic
benefit such as environmental concern would be
phrased as a “particular concern” for global brands. We
phrased an experiential item such as exciting as “Global
brands are more exciting than other brands.” From
these sources (Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen
2008; Hsieh 2002; Keller 1993), we developed a list of
20 Likert-type items, tapping into a range of perceptual
dimensions of brands, not merely global brands (see
Table 1).
The items in Table 1 are clearly not exhaustive. Other
affective and cognitive items have been suggested (e.g.,
Dimofte, Johansson, and Ronkainen [2008] use 56
items). The responses are also likely to be highly related
across constructs, and items are likely to be highly cor-
related, reflecting natural associations in memory. What
is important is to select items that represent the key con-
structs. As Keller (1993) suggests, brand perceptions are
typically linked together in a kind of knowledge net-

Table 1. The 20 Global Brand Association Items

Items

Definitional Items
Global brands are basically the same everywhere. Same everywhere
Global brands are more powerful than other brands. More powerful
Global brands dominate other brands. Dominant

Functional Benefits
Global brands have higher quality than other brands. Higher quality
Global brands do not have high quality Not high quality
Global brands are a safer choice than other brands. Safer choice
Choosing a global brand saves time compared to choosing another brand. Saves time
Global brands are more predictable than other brands Predictable
Global brands offer better value than other brands. Better value
Global brands are more expensive than other brands. More expensive

Experiential Benefits
Global brands are more exciting than other brands. More exciting
Global brands are more stylish than other brands. More stylish
A global brand is more prestigious than other brands. More prestige
Global brands have more status than other brands. More status
Global brands are less intimate than other brands. Less intimate
Global brands are less personal than other brands. Less personal

Symbolic Benefits
Global brands are more ethical than other brands. More ethical
Global brands are particularly concerned about the environment. More environmental
Global brands are more up-to-date than other brands. Up-to-date
There is a unique aura about a global brand. Unique aura

Notes: Likert scale: 1 = “strongly disagree,” and 6 = “strongly agree.”

88 Journal of International Marketing

work that produces more or fewer congruent associa-
tions. The structural model is intended to capture this
congruent network.
Questionnaire
The online questionnaire introduced the topic as being
“about brands” and started by asking about brands in
general. The first seven items queried about the respon-
dent’s familiarity with brands in general, the importance
of brands when making buying decisions, and the atti-
tude toward brands in general. The questionnaire then
asked respondents to indicate the importance of various
attributes when shopping and choosing a brand (ten
items).
We did not introduce the global brand construct until
the third section, to ensure that the brand concept itself
had been well established and that the shift to the global
brand would be more salient and discriminable. The
section first explicitly defined a global brand as one with
“wide availability and recognition,” in contrast to
“other, more local” brands. At that point, we listed 25
brands as examples of global brands. We chose the set
of brands to span a relatively wide distribution of prod-
uct categories, price points, countries of origin, and
brand strength. In the order listed, the brands were
adidas, BMW, Canon, Coca-Cola, Colgate, Dell, Disney,
Ford, Gillette, Google, Heinz, Heineken, Hertz, IKEA,
Kellogg’s, Lenovo, L’Oreal, Marlboro, McDonald’s,
Mercedes-Benz, Nike, Nokia, Samsung, Starbucks,
and Xerox. The intent was to establish the global brand
construct firmly in the respondents’ minds and make
sure they were considering the same global brand
stimulus.
It should be emphasized that the questionnaire did not
ask respondents to evaluate these specific brands
directly. The reason was methodological. We were inter-
ested in the respondents’ associations with and
responses to the higher-level global brand construct. As
research in categorization shows, averaging responses
across exemplars—in our case, actual brand names—
can yield results that are not valid for the higher-level
category as a whole (see Archambault, O’Donnell, and
Schyns 1999). Answers differ systematically with the
specific brands chosen. However, pretesting the ques-
tionnaire without mentioning any brands at all showed
that people interpreted “global brand” differently. For
example, in open-ended queries, several respondents
equated “global brand” to a “foreign brand.” It was
clear that respondents needed more clarification. Offer-
ing a list of 25 brands served to illustrate the concept
while avoiding a focus on a specific brand.
Next, the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate
their general familiarity with global brands and their
perceptions of global brands on the affective and cogni-
tive belief items. The questionnaire then elicited the
respondents’ attitudes and purchase behavior regarding
global brands. The next section asked about the per-
ceived characteristics of the typical global brand buyer
before covering the basic demographics of the
respondent.
Throughout the questionnaire, we formulated the Likert
scales (1 = “strongly disagree,” and 6 = “strongly
agree”) as six-point items to induce commitment and
avoid neutral answers. We made no attempt to differen-
tiate among countries of origin, and we avoided specify-
ing any country in the questionnaire. We also avoided
the words “international” and “foreign,” maintaining
the “global” context throughout the questionnaire.
Sample Characteristics
We attempted to achieve equal representation of males
and females and limited the age groups to between 18
and 55 years of age. Education categories ranged from
high school to postgraduate. For ethnicity, we specified
10%–15% African Americans and a similar amount for
Hispanics. Sampling was sequential, stopping when
1300 responses had been collected. The final sample
size, after we eliminated 52 incomplete answers (in
which respondents had logged off before finishing), was
1248. In general, the demographic results were in the
specified range, and the sample represents today’s U.S.
consumer well (see Table 2). Gender was evenly split,
the sample age groups were well distributed, and the
educational level was reasonably high. At 22.4%, the
African Americans made up a higher percentage than in
the overall population (approximately 13% in 2008),
and the Hispanics, at 14.2%, were closer to the target
(approximately 15% in 2008).
The Hispanics were younger and had relatively more
men in the sample, and the African Americans included
a greater percentage of women. However, we decided
not to try to match the samples precisely but instead to
do spot checks by selecting some of the African Ameri-
can women and the young Hispanic men randomly to
test the mean scores. The results were robust. Overall,
the characteristics of the employed sample mirror the
U.S. consumer base well.
Global Brands in the United States 89
Table 2. Sample Demographics

African
Total Sample Caucasians Americans Hispanics
Characteristic (N = 1248) (N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)

Gender
Male 50.00% 50.80% 44.40% 55.40%
Female 50.00% 49.20% 55.60% 44.60%

Age
18–22 12.50% 10.70% 12.50% 19.80%
23–34 39.40% 37.20% 42.70% 44.10%
34–54 48.10% 52.00% 44.40% 36.20%

Education
High school 31.20% 31.60% 28.30% 34.50%
College 56.70% 55.70% 62.00% 52.50%
Graduate school 12.10% 12.80% 9.70% 13.00%

Marital Status
Single 52.90% 47.60% 64.20% 58.80%
Married 47.10% 52.40% 35.80% 41.20%

Children
Yes 58.60% 58.00% 63.40% 53.70%
No 41.40% 42.00% 36.80% 46.30%

DATA ANALYSIS Overall, no ethnic group considered the globality of the

We performed the data analysis by first calculating
mean responses for the three ethnic groups and then
using a t-test for assessing the significance of the statis-
tical contrasts between the means to test H1–H4. Next,
we tested H5 by means of a structural equation model.
brand an important brand attribute. Still, the observed
differences between Caucasian consumers on the one
hand and African Americans and Hispanics on the other
hand are significant and support H1. As expected, the
minority groups found globality to be more important
than the Caucasian consumers.

Importance of Globality Global Brand Beliefs

The results show the importance of brands in general
and what respondents think about globalization and
global brands generally (see Tables 3 and 4). As Table 3
shows, respondents paid attention to brands and
thought that others did as well. They were generally in
favor of globalization, especially African Americans and
Hispanics. Table 4 shows that when choosing a brand,
good value, reliability, high quality, and low price are
important criteria across all three subgroups. For Cau-
casians, globality was not important, whereas African
Americans and Hispanics were somewhat more neutral.
Table 5 presents the mean responses to the 20 defini-
tional, functional, experiential, and symbolic benefit
items. The definitional items show that, as expected, the
respondents in all three groups agreed that global
brands are largely the same everywhere, are more pow-
erful than other brands (though African Americans were
less certain here), and tend to dominate local brands.
In terms of functional benefits, responses showed some
variance across the three groups. Caucasians did not
think that global brands have higher quality than other

90 Journal of International Marketing

Table 3. Mean Scores for Selected Brand and Globalization Items

African
Total Sample Caucasians Americans Hispanics
Item (N = 1248) (N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)

I don’t pay any attention to brands. 2.56* 2.63a 2.36a 2.55

I think people in general care about brands. 4.72* 4.67a 4.87a 4.73

One knows which country a global

brand comes from. 3.07* 2.97a,b 3.19a 3.36b

If I had the choice I would rather

buy an American brand. 4.52* 4.67a,b 4.30a 4.10b

On the whole, I think globalization

is a good thing. 3.93* 3.78a,b 4.18a 4.19b

*Significantly different from the 3.5 scale midpoint at p < .001.

Notes: Ethnic group means in the same row sharing a superscript are significantly different at the p < .05 level or better. Scale: 1 = “strongly disagree,” and
6 = “strongly agree”; midpoint = 3.5.

Table 4. Mean Importance of Selected Brand Attributes

African
Total Sample Caucasians Americans Hispanics
Brand Attribute (N = 1248) (N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)

Widely recognized 3.94* 3.90 3.97 4.06

Widely available 4.27* 4.22a 4.41a 4.25
High quality 4.60* 4.58 4.65 4.62
Reliable 5.23* 5.23a 5.35a 5.03a
Good value 5.16* 5.16a 5.24b 4.98a,b
Inexpensive 4.15* 4.19 4.16 4.01
Prestigious 3.49 3.36a,b 3.67a 3.80b
Highly ethical 4.12* 4.06a 4.30a 4.14
A domestic brand 3.75* 3.81a 3.62a 3.75
Country-of-origin image 3.98* 4.02 3.95 3.84
Globality 3.28* 3.16a,b 3.48a 3.48b

*Significantly different from the 3.5 scale midpoint at p < .001.

Notes: Ethnic group means in the same row sharing a superscript are significantly different at the p < .05 level or better. Scale: 1 = “not at all important,” and
6 = “extremely important”; midpoint = 3.5.

brands, whereas the African Americans and especially experiential benefits, the differences are even more pro-
the Hispanics did. The latter groups were more in agree- nounced. African Americans and Hispanics derived
ment with previous findings of higher-quality percep- much more satisfaction from global brands on all items
tions for global brands in developing countries. For than Caucasians. They seemed to have no loss of affin-

Global Brands in the United States 91

Table 5. Mean Scores for Global Brand Associations

African
Total Sample Caucasians Americans Hispanics
Variable (N = 1248) (N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)

Definitional Items
Same everywhere 3.82** 3.84 3.75 3.85
More powerful 3.85** 3.92a 3.55a,b 4.01b
Dominate locals 4.06** 4.06 4.01 4.11

Functional Benefits
Higher quality 3.58* 3.48a,b 3.69a 3.81b
Not high quality 2.58** 2.59 2.53 2.62
Safer choice 3.30** 3.25a 3.33 3.47a
Saves time 3.47 3.40a 3.54 3.65a
Predictable 3.79** 3.80 3.80 3.76
Better value 3.46** 3.33a 3.46 3.64a
More expensive 3.78** 3.67a,b 3.96a 3.96b

Experiential Benefits
More exciting 3.24** 3.10a,b 3.46a 3.51b
More stylish 3.47 3.40a,b 3.54a 3.67b
More prestigious 3.55 3.44a,b 3.74a 3.73b
More status 4.01** 3.96a 4.15a 4.02
Less intimate 3.35** 3.42a 3.20a 3.27
Less personal 3.52 3.61a,b 3.35a 3.37b

Symbolic Benefits
More ethical 2.97** 2.90a,b 3.09a 3.12b
More environmental 3.10** 3.02a,b 3.23a 3.24b
Unique aura 3.44 3.32a,b 3.68a 3.62b
More up-to-date 3.55 3.49a 3.59 3.73a

*Significantly different from the 3.5 scale midpoint at p < .01.

*Significantly different from the 3.5 scale midpoint at p < .001.
Notes: Ethnic group means in the same row sharing a superscript are significantly different at the p < .05 level or better. Scale: 1 = “strongly disagree,” and
6 =“strongly agree”; midpoint = 3.5.

ity with global brands, whereas Caucasians were much
less favorable. Finally, the symbolic benefits showed
greater agreement on the question of ethics and environ-
mental concern, for which global brands did not score
very well. In terms of a unique aura and being up-to-
date, the differences again arose between the more
doubtful Caucasians and the positively inclined African
Americans and Hispanics. Unlike the latter, Caucasian
consumers perceived global brands as having a more
consistent quality though not necessarily higher quality
than other brands.
Focusing on the differences between African American
and Hispanics, Table 5 shows that both groups have
largely the same beliefs about global brands. The mean
scores are significantly different in only two instances:
“more powerful” and (marginally) “better value.” It is
possible to attribute the difference in the “more power-
ful” score to the different historical experiences of the
two ethnic groups (Phinney 1996), and in the subse-
quent analysis, we omitted both items.
Overall, these results support our hypothesis about
global brand beliefs (H3). In general, the two ethnic sub-
groups are more positive about global brands than the
Caucasian consumers. However (and this is significant
for behavior), they perceive the prices for global brands
as higher than the Caucasians do.

92 Journal of International Marketing

Attitude and Behavior
Table 6 presents the mean scores on the attitude and
behavioral items. Note first that familiarity with global
brands was similarly high and strong across all three
groups. Attitude scores were also relatively high, even
among Caucasians, and all three groups considered glo-
bality a positive (albeit relatively unimportant, as Table
4 indicates) factor. On average, U.S. consumers, like
those elsewhere, are generally positive toward global
brands. Three attitudinal items showed a positive asso-
ciation with global brands as a category, though the
Caucasians showed consistently lower scores than either
African Americans or Hispanics, as H2 predicted.
However, the reported purchasing behavior reveals a
general similarity among the three groups. Despite their
generally lower attitudes toward global brands, Cau-
casians bought the same proportion of global brands as
the other two groups. Both purchase behavior items
showed the same pattern. The relatively stronger prefer-
ence for local brands did not seem to have much of a
role for the Caucasians. Therefore, H4 is not supported.
One explanation for the difference could simply be less
access to global brands for African American and His-
panic consumers. However, the familiarity scores in
Table 6 are similar, suggesting that access is not an issue.
We do not have specific data on the availability of global
Table 6. Attitude and Behavior Toward Global Brands
Global Brand Total Sample
Variable (N = 1248)
Familiarity 4.61*
Attitude
Favorableness 3.96*
Is globality a positive? 4.35*
Purchase Behavior
How often chosen global? 3.31*
What percentage bought? 3.38*
*Significantly different from the 3.5 scale midpoint at p < .001.
Notes: Ethnic group means in the same row sharing a superscript are significantly different at the p < .05 level or better. “How often chosen global” is anchored at
“never” and “every time”; “What percentage bought?” is measured in six percentage categories: 0, 1–10, 11–24, 25–49, 50–75, and 76–100. Scale: 1 = “low proglobal
scores,” and 6 = “high proglobal scores.”
brands in the stores, and it is possible that at least some
global brands are not readily available in less affluent
neighborhoods (Moore and Diez-Roux 2006). How-
ever, this should be reflected in differences in familiarity,
which was not the case.
Another possible explanation is price differences. Table
5 shows that Hispanics and African Americans perceive
global brands as more expensive, but they also perceive
them as offering better noneconomic value. To test
whether price was an issue, we ran a linear regression on
one purchase item (“How often chosen global?” in
Table 6) against three independent variables: The first
was an attitude measure (“favorableness” in Table 6),
the second was a perceived price item (“more expen-
sive” in Table 1), and the third was a perceived value
item (“better value” in Table 1). If price was a factor, we
would expect a significant, negative effect from the per-
ceived price variable, possibly countered by a perception
of better noneconomic value.
For Caucasian respondents (N = 792), the regression
produced the following estimates: βfavorable = .35
(p < .001), βexpensive = .09 (p < .001), βvalue = .12
(p < .001), adjusted R2 = .30. The same equation for
African Americans (N = 279) shows some differences:
βfavorable = .40 (p < .001), βexpensive = .04 (not signifi-
cant), βvalue = .12 (p < .001), adjusted R2 = .30. Finally,
differences are even more striking for Hispanics
African
Caucasians Americans Hispanics
(N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)
4.63 4.63 4.47
3.87a,b 4.13a 4.08b
4.29a 4.38 4.54a
3.32 3.30 3.28
3.39 3.32 3.40
Global Brands in the United States 93
(N = 177): βfavorable = .48 (p < .001), βexpensive = .03 (not
significant), βvalue = .13 (p < .001), adjusted R2 = .36.
We then ran a Chow test of these regressions to evaluate
the extent to which they were equal. As hypothesized,
the pairwise tests indicated a significant difference
between Caucasians and the minority ethnic groups but
not between Hispanics and African Americans. The
associated Chow test using the pooled minority groups
was significant: F = 8.79, p < .03.
These results show greater price sensitivity on the Cau-
casians’ part than among the Hispanics and the African
Americans. This finding, coupled with the notion that
Caucasians do not believe very strongly that global
brands are more expensive (see Table 5), helps explain
what drove the surprisingly high level of global brand
purchases among the Caucasians, in contradiction to
H4. They responded positively to the perceived afford-
able prices of global brands, whereas both African
Americans and especially Hispanics found that the bet-
ter noneconomic value in global brands outweighed
their perceived higher prices. They bought them for
overall value (noneconomic in particular), whereas Cau-
casians were more concerned about low prices (eco-
nomic value). The overall differences between Cau-
casians on the one hand and Hispanic and African
Americans on the other hand provide significant sup-
port for our conceptual account (see Table 7).
THE COMPLETE MODEL
To estimate the cognitive structure linking brand beliefs
to attitudes and behavior for the three ethnic groups and
test H5, we employed structural equation modeling. We
used the LISREL program (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1999)
for all the estimations.
Model Specification
The initial step involved narrowing down the association
items in Table 5 to a more manageable set of constructs.
Using intercorrelations, Cronbach’s alphas, and modifi-
cation indexes, an exploratory factor analysis identified
five distinctive constructs that captured most of the var-
iation in the associations. Two constructs involved func-
tional benefits. They were labeled “quality” (with indica-
tors “higher quality” and “safer choice”) and
“convenience” (with indicators “saves time” and “more
predictable”). Experiential benefits also showed two
constructs, labeled “expressive” (with indicators “more
94 Journal of International Marketing
exciting” and “more stylish”) and “social” (with indica-
tors “more status” and “more prestigious”). Symbolic
benefits included one construct, “ethics,” with “more
ethical” and “more environmental concern” as indica-
tors. The indicators for the attitude and purchase con-
structs comprised the items listed in Table 6. These indi-
cators show reasonably high Cronbach’s alphas, ranging
from .77 to .64. Two of the constructs did not reach the
customary cutoff of .70 (convenience at .64 and ethics at
.66), but with two indicators, the alpha is not very con-
clusive (see Hulin, Netemeyer, and Cudek 2001; Schmitt
1996). The critical point here is the overall fit of the
model, which is good.
Next, we performed confirmatory factor analyses sepa-
rately for each ethnicity on the measures of seven fac-
tors: quality, convenience, expressive, social, ethics, atti-
tudes, and purchase behavior. Table 8 presents the
overall findings, which show that the seven-factor con-
firmatory factor analyses fit the data well in all three
ethnic groups, with all the fit measures meeting or sur-
passing standard cutoffs.
The initial specification placed the global brand con-
struct represented by the belief constructs as antecedent
to the attitude and purchase outcomes. We estimated
this model using LISREL. The intent was to infer from
the data how the global brand beliefs link up with the
attitudinal and behavioral responses in a plausible struc-
ture. We used the full sample for the specification analy-
sis, testing whether the model could be applied for all
three ethnic subgroups.
In the final specification, the global brand stimulus also
links directly to the outcomes (attitude and purchase).
That is, not only does brand globality capture the asso-
ciations reflected in the five constructs (which can be
considered components of globality), but as Figure 1
shows, globality also affects attitude and purchases
directly.
Thus, in the more complete structural model, we found
a direct link between globality and behavior. With brand
globality specified as an antecedent second-order factor
(capturing common variance in brand beliefs and affect-
ing attitudes and behavior), the globality of a brand
influences attitude and behavior directly.
Estimation Results
Table 9 presents the specific structural model estimates
and also shows the measurement parameter estimates
Table 7. Overall Contrasts Between Caucasian and Non-Caucasian (African American and Hispanic) Consumers

Caucasians Non-Caucasians
Item (N = 792) (N = 456)

I don’t pay any attention to brands. 2.63a 2.43b

I think people in general care about brands. 4.67a 4.82b
One knows which country a global brand comes from. 2.97a 3.26b
If I had the choice I would rather buy an American brand. 4.67a 4.25b
On the whole, I think globalization is a good thing. 3.78a 4.18b

Same everywhere 3.84 3.79

More powerful 3.92 3.73
Dominate locals 4.06 4.05
Higher quality 3.48a 3.74a
Not high quality 2.59 2.56
Safer choice 3.25a 3.38a
Saves time 3.40a 3.58a
Predictable 3.80 3.78
Better value 3.33a 3.53a
More expensive 3.67a 3.96a
More exciting 3.10a 3.46a
More stylish 3.40a 3.59a
More prestigious 3.44a 3.74a
More status 3.96 4.10
Less intimate 3.42a 3.23a
Less personal 3.61a 3.35a
More ethical 2.90a 3.10a
More environmental 3.02a 3.23a
Unique aura 3.32a 3.66a
More up-to-date 3.49a 3.64a

Familiarity 4.63 4.57

Attitude favorableness 3.87a 4.11a
Is globality a positive? 4.29a 4.44a
How often chosen global? 3.32 3.29
What percentage bought? 3.39 3.35

Notes: Means in the same row sharing a superscript are significantly different at the p < .05 level or better.

and goodness-of-fit indexes. The fit is consistently good
across the three segments. The measurement loadings
are consistently strong across all seven constructs and
similar across the three ethnic groups. The structural
coefficient estimates are high and also similar across the
groups for the beliefs’ links to globality.
The structural estimates for attitude and purchase are
slightly lower, especially for purchases, but still signifi-
cant. As expected, the attitude-to-purchase link is
weaker for the Caucasians (in which the price-omitted
variable likely has a role), and there is some heterogene-
ity between groups in the globality-to-purchase links.
The larger coefficient for Caucasians in the globality-to-
attitude link suggests that the global brand associations
among the Caucasians are more congruent with their
attitudes than with those of the other two ethnic
groups. The variance explained in attitudes and

Global Brands in the United States 95

Table 8. Parameter Estimates and Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Seven-Factor Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Each
Ethnic Group

Factor Correlations

Caucasians (N = 792) Ethics Convenience Quality Social Expressive Attitude Purchase

Goodness-of-Fit Indexes 1.00

χ2(56) = 204.33 .62 1.00

RMSEA = .06 .70 .72 1.00

NNFI = .98 .64 .69 .68 1.00

CFI = .99 .76 .68 .78 .87 1.00

SRMR = .03 .55 .54 .72 .57 .63 1.00

.37 .67 .52 .51 .47 .68 1.00

Factor Correlations

African Americans (N = 279) Ethics Convenience Quality Social Expressive Attitude Purchase

Goodness-of-Fit Indexes 1.00

χ2(56) = 127.04 .66 1.00

RMSEA = .07 .64 .74 1.00

NNFI = .97 .65 .84 .62 1.00

CFI = .98 .83 .81 .68 .77 1.00

SRMR = .05 .48 .58 .60 .58 .59 1.00

.26 .61 .43 .52 .47 .74 1.00

Factor Correlations

Hispanics (N = 177) Ethics Convenience Quality Social Expressive Attitude Purchase

Goodness-of-Fit Indexes 1.00

χ2(56)= 62.06 .67 1.00

RMSEA = .03 .63 .69 1.00

NNFI = 1.00 .65 .74 .59 1.00

CFI = 1.00 .78 .69 .71 .79 1.00

SRMR = .04 .50 .35 .50 .57 .53 1.00

.39 .55 .50 .70 .58 .79 1.00

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NNFI = nonnormed fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, and SRMR = standardized root mean square
residual; see Table 9 for factor loading estimates.

purchases by the model ranges from roughly 40% to Next, we tested the significance of the differences in
60%, which is high for cross-sectional analyses with real model and coefficient estimates among the three groups
consumers. These outcomes are well explained by the using pairwise multiple sample analyses. (The Appendix
model constructs. presents the detailed results.) Overall, the test results

96 Journal of International Marketing

Figure 1. Structural Equation Model Capturing U.S. Consumers’ Cognitive Structure Related to Global Brands

ε11 ε12

y11 y12

1 λ12 ζ7
Attitude
ζ2
η7
β87
ε1 y1 1
Ethics ζ8
β21 β71
η2
ε2 y2 Purchase
λ2 η8
Antecedents
ζ3 β31 (second-order factor) β81 1 λ14
ε3 y3 1 η1
Convenience β61 y13 y14
η3
ε4 y4 β51
λ2 β41 ζ6
ζ4 ε13 ε14
ζ5

Quality Social Expressive

η4 η5 η6
1 λ6 1 λ8 1 λ10

y5 y6 y7 y8 y9 y10

ε5 ε6 ε7 ε8 ε9 ε10

show that the baseline model in Figure 1 is invariant in
factor patterns and first-order factor loadings among
the ethnicities, in support of H5. Furthermore, none of
the differences between African Americans and Hispan-
ics are significant: The groups show strong similarities
(Table A1). The significant differences between Cau-
casians and Hispanics occur mainly in the stronger
attitude-to-purchase link for Hispanics and the lower
unexplained variance in attitude for the Caucasians
(Table A2). Although Hispanics and Caucasians are
similar in the measurement portion of the model, the
Hispanics show significantly higher consistency between
attitude and behavior than the Caucasians (against H5).
The distinctions between Caucasians and African
Americans are even stronger (see Table A3). Again,
there are no significant differences in the measurement
part of the model. As in the case of the Hispanics, how-
ever, African Americans show greater consistency
between attitude and behavior than the Caucasians. The
differences in the second-order factor loadings for the
two segments show that for African Americans, expres-
siveness is more salient (Chattaraman, Rudd, and
Lennon 2009), whereas Caucasians are more influenced
by their (relatively low) assessment of quality. Apart
from the similarity between African Americans and His-
panics, and the similarity of the measurement model, H5
is rejected.
Model Implications
The overall good fit of the structural equations suggests
that the evoked brand associations can explain U.S. con-
sumers’ relationships with global brands regardless of
ethnicity. That is, the observed differences among ethnic
groups can be related to differences in perceptions and
attitudes. The respondents are familiar with global

Global Brands in the United States 97

Table 9. Parameter Estimates, Explained Variance, and Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Each Group

African
Caucasians Americans Hispanics
(N = 792) (N = 279) (N = 177)

Measurement Model
Ethical λ1 (more ethical) .67 .65 .71
λ2 (more environmental) .74 .66 .77
Convenience λ3 (saves time) .59 .62 .72
λ4 (more predictable) .75 .72 .79
Quality λ5 (higher quality) .78 .81 .75
λ6 (safer choice) .78 .84 .81
Social λ7 (more prestigious) .63 .66 .78
λ8 (more status) .85 .80 .85
Expressive λ9 (more exciting) .77 .74 .76
λ10 (more stylish) .78 .79 .77
Attitude λ11 (favorableness) .72 .72 .83
λ12 (global positive?) .82 .77 .81
Purchase λ13 (how often?) .88 .87 .92
λ14 (% bought) .82 .85 .80

Structural Model
Global → ethical .78 .80 .79
Global → convenience .79 .93 .82
Global → quality .86 .78 .76
Global → social .86 .85 .88
Global → expressive .93 .91 .91
Global → attitude .71 .67 .59
Attitude → purchase .55 .67 .60
Global → purchase .19 .11 .31

Explained Variance
R2 attitude .51 .44 .35
R2 purchase .48 .55 .68

Goodness-of-Fit
χ2 (d.f.) 335.62 (69) 160.63 (69) 95.84 (69)
RMSEA .07 .07 .05
NNFI .97 .97 .99
CFI .98 .97 .99
SRMR .05 .05 .05

Notes: All factor loadings and paths are significant at the p < .001 level or better except the global → purchase path, which was significant at p < .05, nonsignificant,
and significant at p < .01 for Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics, respectively. Global = second-order antecedent (see Figure 1). RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation, NNFI = nonnormed fit index, CFI = confirmatory factor analysis, and SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

98 Journal of International Marketing

brands, have specific beliefs about these brands, but,
among ethnic segments, do not agree on how well
the global brands should be rated on quality, status, and
other traits. In addition, although most of the consumers
show positive attitudes toward both globalization and
global brands, Caucasians tend to rate global brands
lower than either African Americans or Hispanics.
The rejection of H5 also shows differences in the struc-
tural linkages among beliefs, attitudes, and behavior.
The main reason refers to the direct linkage between
globality and behavior, which plays a much more signifi-
cant role for Caucasians than for the other two seg-
ments. The model estimates suggest that mostly generic
issues, such as quality and convenience, drive Cau-
casians’ behavior toward global brands. In contrast,
African American and Hispanics find much more hedo-
nic pleasures in global brands. They care about global
brands, whereas Caucasians demonstrate indifference,
though they still buy them at the same rate, a finding
reflected in the direct path from globality to behavior.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
This research demonstrates how global brand beliefs
link up with attitudes and behaviors among three ethnic
groups of U.S. consumers. The results suggest that there
is cognitive consistency for all three groups among
beliefs, attitudes, and behavior and that globality,
despite not being considered very important (especially
by Caucasian consumers), is a relevant attribute. Global
brands are significantly more salient and viewed more
favorably by African American and Hispanic con-
sumers, in support of H1.
The results also show that these consumers perceive
global brands differently across ethnic groups. African
American and Hispanic market segments associate
global brands with higher product quality, higher social
status and prestige, and superior style, reflecting similar
findings about global brands in prior research with con-
sumers in developing countries (in support of H3). In
contrast, Caucasian consumers are less positive. They
do not find global brands to be any more exciting than
other brands, and though they perceive them as imply-
ing higher social status, they do not think their product
quality is necessarily higher.
Across ethnic groups, consumers with more positive
perceptions of global brands also have more positive
attitudes overall and, as expected, show higher purchase
rates of global brands (H4). The Caucasian respondents’
attitudes are more closely related to their assessment of
the quality of global brands, whereas both African
Americans and Hispanics pay more attention to hedonic
aspects of the brands, including prestige and stylishness.
Because Caucasians do not find any higher quality in
global brands, their attitudes are not particularly posi-
tive. In contrast, the more positive associations conjured
by global brands among African American and Hispan-
ics (including perceptions of higher quality) translate
into significantly more positive attitudes (H2).
However, although Caucasians’ perceptions and atti-
tudes tend to be less favorable than those of African
American and Hispanic consumers, they nonetheless
buy global brands at the same rate as non-Caucasians
(against the expectations in H4). Thus, the link between
attitude and purchase is weaker for Caucasian con-
sumers, an inconsistency not explained by differences in
access or familiarity but possibly originating in differ-
ences in price perceptions. Caucasians are price sensi-
tive, but because they do not perceive global brands to
be any more expensive than other brands, they buy
them. African Americans and Hispanics are not as price
sensitive, and though they perceive global brands as
more expensive, they also find greater value in them, so
they purchase them. This finding is also consistent with
the notion that Caucasian consumers in the United
States are relatively more affluent than either African
Americans or Hispanics. This pattern of behavioral
responses is reflected in significantly different estimates
of the path coefficients between attitude and behavior in
the structural model.
This research shows that when it comes to global
brands, the U.S. marketplace exhibits similar character-
istics to other advanced markets but also to other devel-
oping markets. The results bolster Tung’s (2008) asser-
tion that cultural diversity can be analyzed within a
multicultural nation. As in Western Europe, there is no
explicit preference for global brands among Caucasians,
but as in developing countries, there are minority groups
that prefer global brands. Similar to consumers in devel-
oping markets, consumers from minority ethnic groups
in the United States seem to find global brands more
appealing than consumers in more advanced stages of
the consumerism life cycle (Thorelli 1981).
Limitations and Further Research
One limitation of the study is the question of possibly
omitted global brand beliefs and associations and
Global Brands in the United States 99
whether the African American and Hispanic homoge-
neity is as strong as the results suggest. For example, the
significant difference in the “more powerful” item
between African American and Hispanic groups (see
Table 5) points to likely differences if we had included
more items related to experiences of prejudice and pow-
erlessness (the third category of Phinney’s [1996] frame-
work of ethnicity dimensions). This is a fruitful area for
further research.
There are also limitations in the data collection. The
online sampling method does not allow for a truly rep-
resentative sample; especially among the minority
groups, online access can vary considerably. Another
potential weakness is that income data were not col-
lected in our survey; however, the demographics of the
three samples are well matched to the overall popula-
tion, and the results are in line with the presumption
that Caucasians are relatively more affluent. Caucasians
perceive global brands as less expensive than minority
groups do (see Roth 1995), and the Chow test shows
that they are less price sensitive.
In terms of additional research, it would be worthwhile
to develop a more complete global brand attitudinal
model by including social norms and motivation to
comply. Consumption behavior of African American
and Hispanic market segments is likely to involve spe-
cific social norms that affect attitudes and behavior
toward global brands, and assessing the role of these
social factors would help in understanding differences in
behavior.
Further research should also include the increasingly
important Asian American market segment, which is
relevant to the topic in terms of both its relatively
more cosmopolitan nature and its cultural roots.
As the one ethnic group that is more affluent than the
Caucasian ethnic majority, Asian Americans’ response
to global brands presents an interesting case, and further
work is required to assess the global brand effect among
them.
It is also clear that further research is needed to learn
how consumer reactions to global brands might be
shaped by marketing stimuli that are standardized
across ethnic groups, compared with efforts adapted to
a specific ethnic segment. Such efforts would speak
directly to the apparent social identity conflict affecting
members of these ethnic groups, between their aspira-
tion toward the mainstream and their desire to stay
close to their own heritage.
100 Journal of International Marketing
Managerial Implications
Under these conditions, is the globality of a global
brand a strategic asset? The results suggest that the
answer is affirmative. Similar to Kim and Chung’s
(1997) argument for international brand popularity as
an intangible asset, there is customer equity in a global
brand that does not accrue to other brands (see Shimp,
Samiee, and Madden 1993). However, the amount of
equity is likely to differ significantly across consumer
segments (see Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010). In an
advanced economy such as the United States, the typical
Caucasian consumer is less concerned about globality.
In less developed countries, as in segments with disad-
vantaged consumers, globality is a more salient and
positively evaluated factor. Minority consumers are
more likely to explicitly consider global brands superior,
suggesting that they will more readily respond to overt
references in marketing communications to evidence of
globality.
These results might seem to suggest that globality should
be a significant ingredient in any brand communications
targeting African Americans and Hispanic consumers;
however, this might be too obvious a tactic. Given their
emphasis on quality, these segments might respond more
favorably to a direct appeal in terms of higher quality,
with the aspiration factor implied rather than empha-
sized. These goals can be achieved by establishing the
brand as a global player. Such a global connotation cre-
ates desirable associations among minority consumers.
In addition, recent research has indicated that the mere
accessibility of these consumers’ group identities may
prime more positive evaluations of global brands (Zhang
and Khare 2009). Moreover, the evidence is that glo-
bality does matter in a positive way for consumers in the
majority Caucasian segment as well. Thus, across the
board, being perceived as global puts a positive accent on
the brand promise, even in the United States.
APPENDIX: PAIRWISE TEST RESULTS
Tables A1–A3 present the findings for each pairwise
comparison by ethnicity. African Americans and His-
panics are compared in Table A1, in which the well-
fitting baseline model establishes the equality in factor
patterns between the two ethnicities.
The second row in Table A1 shows that the first-order
factor loadings are also invariant for African Americans
and Hispanics, and the third row further demonstrates
Table A1. Test of Hypotheses Comparing African Americans and Hispanics

Model Result Conclusion

1. Baseline (Figure 1) χ2(138) = 256.47 Factor pattern same for African

RMSEA = .06 and Hispanic Americans.
NNFI = .97
CFI = .98
SRMR = .05

2. Equality of factor loadings χ2(145) = 258.14 Factor loadings invariant for

χ2d(7) = 1.67, p > .97 African and Hispanic Americans.

3. Equality of second-order factor loadings χ2(149) = 263.14 β31, β41, β51, and β61 invariant for
(see Figure 1) χ2d(4) = 5.00, p > .28 African and Hispanic Americans.

4. Equality of β71 χ2(150) = 263.14 β71 invariant for African and

χ2d(1) = .00, p = 1.00 Hispanic Americans.

5. Equality of β81 χ2(151) = 266.30 β81 invariant for African and

χ2d(1) = 3.16, p > .05 Hispanic Americans.

6. Equality of β87 χ2(152) = 267.98 β87 invariant for African and

χ2d(1) = 1.68, p > .19 Hispanic Americans.

7. Equality of ψ77 χ2(153) = 271.22 ψ77 invariant for African and

χ2d(1) = 3.24, p > .05 Hispanic Americans.

8. Equality of ψ88 χ2(154) = 271.31 ψ88 invariant for African and

χ2d(1) = .09, p > .75 Hispanic Americans.

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NNFI = nonnormed fit index, CFI = confirmatory factor analysis, and SRMR = standardized root mean
square residual.

that the second-order factor loadings are invariant as
well. Next, we tested for the invariance of the three
paths (β71, β81, and β87) and found that all three are
equal across African Americans and Hispanics (see rows
4–6 in Table A1). The last two rows in Table A1 pres-
ent the findings for the test of equality of error variances
in the attitude and purchase factors; note that we can-
not reject the invariance of these error variances.
Table A2 summarizes the tests of invariance of parame-
ters for Caucasians and Hispanics. The results in rows
1–5 show that we cannot reject the hypotheses that the
factor patterns, first- and second-order factor loadings,
and paths from antecedents to attitude and from
antecedents to purchase, respectively, are invariant. Row
6 in Table A2 shows that the path from attitude to pur-
chase is statistically lower for Caucasians than for His-
panics. Likewise, the error variance for attitude is statis-
tically lower for Caucasians than for Hispanics (row 7 in
Table A2). Finally, the error variances in purchase are
invariant for Caucasians and Hispanics (row 8).
Table A3 presents the findings for the comparison of
Caucasians and African Americans. The first two rows
show that the factor patterns and factor loadings are
invariant for Caucasians and African Americans. In con-
trast, the third row in Table A3 indicates that the second-
order factor loadings for Caucasians on convenience and
expressive are statistically lower than for African Ameri-
cans, whereas the second-order factor loadings for Cau-
casians on quality and social are statistically greater than
for African Americans. Rows 4–6 reveal that the paths

Global Brands in the United States 101

Table A2. Test of Hypotheses Comparing Caucasians and Hispanics

Model Result Conclusion

1. Baseline (Figure 1) χ2(138) = 431.47 Factor pattern same for Caucasian

RMSEA = .07 and Hispanic Americans.
NNFI = .97
CFI = .98
SRMR = .05

2. Equality of factor loadings χ2(145) = 444.50 Factor loadings invariant for Cau-
χ2d(7) = 13.03, p > .05 casian and Hispanic Americans.

3. Equality of second-order factor loadings χ2(149) = 448.62 β31, β41, β51, and β61 invariant for for
(see Figure 1) χ2d(4) = 4.12, p > .40 Caucasian and Hispanic Americans.

4. Equality of β71 χ2(150) = 449.57 β71 invariant for for Caucasian and
χ2d(1) = .95, p > .30 Hispanic Americans.

5. Equality of β81 χ2(151) = 451.40 β81 invariant for for Caucasian and
χ2d(1) = 1.83, p > .15 Hispanic Americans.

6. Equality of β87 χ2(152) = 457.81 βC87 < βH87

χ2d(1) = 6.41, p < .02

7. Equality of ψ77 χ2(152) = 455.83 ψC77 < ψH77

χ2d(1) = 4.43, p < .05

8. Equality of ψ88 χ2(152) = 451.64 ψC88 = ψH88

χ2d(1) = .24, p > .60

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NNFI = nonnormed fit index, CFI = confirmatory factor analysis, and SRMR = standardized root mean
square residual.

from antecedents to attitude and purchase are statisti-
cally greater for Caucasians than for African Americans.
Finally, the last two rows in Table A3 indicate that the
error variances in attitudes and purchase are greater for
African Americans and greater for Caucasians, respec-
tively. To put the findings in Table A3 in perspective, we
note that though the pointed-out parameters (which
were not invariant) suggest statistical differences, the
actual magnitude of differences is relatively small. It
appears that the large sample sizes for both Caucasians
and African Americans may account for the statistical
differences. Small differences for large sample sizes tend
to be magnified. The invariance analyses presented in
Tables A1 and A2 seem to support this conjecture.
Finally, we tested whether differences in factor means
among the groups were significant. The factor means
should reflect the mean scores reported in Tables 5
and 6 closely. The results (Table A4) are in agreement
with the raw item means. There were no significant dif-
ferences between Hispanics and African Americans for
any of the seven factors (right-hand column in the
table). However, the contrast was significant for the
pairings involving Caucasians for five of the seven fac-
tors. With Caucasian factor means fixed at zero for
comparison, the significant positives in the table indi-
cate higher factor means for the two non-Caucasian
groups. Both African Americans and Hispanics show
significantly higher factor means for the ethics, quality,
social, expressive, and attitude constructs, whereas no
significant differences emerged for convenience and
purchase. As previously, non-Caucasians are more
positive on most associations, though Caucasians also
appreciate the convenience of global brands. Again,

102 Journal of International Marketing

Table A3. Test of Hypotheses Comparing Caucasians and African Americans

Model Result Conclusion

1. Baseline (Figure 1) χ2(138) = 496.47 Factor pattern same for Caucasians

RMSEA = .07 and African Americans.
NNFI = .97
CFI = .98
SRMR = .05

2. Equality of factor loadings χ2(145) = 503.62 Factor loadings invariant for Caucasian
χ2d(7) = 7.37, p > .40 and African Americans.

3. Equality of second-order factor loadings β31: χ2(146) = 612.07 βC31 < βAM
31
(see Figure 1) χ2d(1) = 108.45, p > .001

β41: χ2(146) = 605.70 βC41 > βAM

41
χ2d(1) = 102.08, p > .001

β51: χ2(146) = 607.83 βC51 > βAM

51
χ2d(1) = 104.21, p > .001

β61: χ2(146) = 611.20 βC61 < βAM

61
χ2d(1) = 107.58, p > .001

4. Equality of β71 χ2(146) = 611.20 βC71 > βAM

71
χ2d(1) = 107.58, p > .001

5. Equality of β81 χ2(146) = 603.03 βC81 > βAM

81
χ2d(1) = 99.41, p > .001

6. Equality of β87 χ2(146) = 607.58 βC87 < βAM

87
χ2d(1) = 103.96, p > .001

7. Equality of ψ77 χ2(146) = 605.99 ψC77 < ψAM

77
χ2d(1) = 102.37, p > .001

8. Equality of ψ88 χ2(146) = 609.05 ψC88 > ψAM

88
χ2d(1) = 105.43, p > .001

Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NNFI = nonnormed fit index, CFI = confirmatory factor analysis, and SRMR = standardized root mean
square residual.

Caucasian consumers have significantly less positive
attitudes toward global brands but show the same pur-
chase levels.
REFERENCES
ACNielsen (2001), Reaching the Billion-Dollar Mark: A Review
of Today’s Global Brands. Chicago: ACNielsen.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev
Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in
Asia, North America and Europe: The Role of Global Con-
sumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.
Archambault, Annie, Christopher O’Donnell, and Philippe G.
Schyns (1999), “Blind to Object Changes: When Learning the
Same Object at Different Levels of Categorization Modifies Its
Perception,” Psychological Science, 10 (3), 249–55.
Askegaard, Søren, Eric J. Arnould, and Dannie Kjeldgaard
(2005), “Postassimilationist Ethnic Consumer Research:
Qualifications and Extensions,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (3), 160–70.

Global Brands in the United States 103

Table A4. Test of Factor Means

Change in Factor Means (t-Value)

Caucasians Caucasians African Americans

Factor Versus African Americansa Versus Hispanicsa Versus Hispanicsb

Ethics .21 (3.05) .22 (2.73) .02 (.19)

Convenience .08 (1.25) .13 (1.77) .05 (.50)

Quality .15 (2.14) .28 (3.59) .13 (1.38)

Social .23 (3.72) .19 (2.43) –.06 (–.57)

Expressive .25 (3.54) .33 (3.99) .08 (.85)

Attitude .19 (3.41) .21 (3.01) .05 (.57)

Purchase –.04 (–.08) –.02 (–.38) .01 (.18)

aMeans of Caucasians are fixed to zero for comparison.

bMeans of African Americans are fixed to zero for comparison.

Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, Jan-
Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000),
“Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer
Attitudes in Developing Countries,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.
Bergier, Michel J. (1986), “Predictive Validity of Ethnic Identifi-
cation Measures: An Illustration of the English/French Classi-
fication Dilemma in Canada,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 14 (2), 37–42.
Berkson, Isaac B. (1969), Theories of Acculturation: A Critical
Study. New York: Arno Press.
Bernstein, R. (2004), “Hispanic and Asian Americans Increas-
ing Faster Than Overall Population,” U.S. Census Bureau
press release, (June 14), (accessed November 10, 2009),
[available at http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/
releases/archives/race/001839.html].
Bush, Alan J., Rachel Smith, and Craig Martin (1999), “The
Influence of Consumer Socialization Variables on Attitude
Toward Advertising: A Comparison of African-Americans
and Caucasians,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 13–24.
Chattaraman, Veena, Nancy A. Rudd, and Sharron J. Lennon
(2009), “Identity Salience and Shifts in Product Preferences of
Hispanic Consumers: Cultural Relevance of Product Attrib-
utes as a Moderator,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (8),
826–33.
mance: The Role of Brand Loyalty,” Journal of Marketing, 65
(April), 81–93.
Darley, William K. and Denise M. Johnson (1993), “Cross-
National Comparison of Consumer Attitudes Toward Con-
sumerism in Four Developing Countries,” Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 27 (1), 37–54.
Deshpandé, Rohit, Wayne D. Hoyer, and Naveen Donthu
(1986), “The Intensity of Ethnic Affiliation: A Study of the
Sociology of Hispanic Consumption,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 13 (2), 214–20.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka A.
Ronkainen (2008), “Cognitive and Affective Reactions of
U.S. Consumers to Global Brands,” Journal of International
Marketing, 16 (4), 113–35.
Donthu, Naveen and Joseph Cherian (1994), “Impact of
Strength of Ethnic Identification on Hispanic Shopping Behav-
ior,” Journal of Retailing, 70 (4), 383–93.
Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Beliefs, Attitudes,
Intentions, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and
Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Gardyn, Rebecca and John Fetto (2003), “Race, Ethnicity and
the Way We Shop,” American Demographics, 25 (1), 30–33.

Chaudhuri, Arjun and Morris B. Holbrook (2001), “The Chain Gentry, James W., Sunkyu Jun, and Patriya Tansuhaj (1995),
of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect to Brand Perfor- “Consumer Acculturation Processes and Cultural Conflict.

104 Journal of International Marketing

 How Generalizable Is a North American Model for Market-
ing Globally?” Journal of Business Research, 32 (2), 129–39.
Green, Corliss L (1995), “Differential Responses to Retail Sales
Promotion Among African-American and Anglo-American
Consumers,” Journal of Retailing, 71 (1), 83–92.
Halliday, Jean (2000), “Volvo to Buckle Up African-
Americans,” Advertising Age, (February 14), 28.
Holt, Douglas B. (2004), How Brands Become Icons. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
———, Jack A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor (2004), “How
Global Brands Compete,” Harvard Business Review, 82 (9),
68–81.
Hsieh, Ming H. (2002), “Identifying Brand Image Dimension-
ality and Measuring the Degree of Brand Globalization: A
Cross-National Study,” Journal of International Marketing,
10 (2), 46–67.
Hulin, Charles, Richard Netemeyer, and Robert Cudek (2001),
“Can a Reliability Coefficient Be Too High?” Journal of Con-
sumer Psychology, 10 (1–2), 55–58.
Huntington, Samuel P. (2004), Who Are We? The Challenges to
America’s National Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Johansson, Johny K. and Ilkka A. Ronkainen (2005), “The
Esteem of Global Brands,” Journal of Brand Management, 12
(5), 339–54.
Jöreskog, Karl G. and Dag Sörbom (1999), LISREL 8: User’s
Reference Guide, 2d ed. Chicago: Scientific Software
International.
Kapferer, Jean N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management, 2d ed.
London: Kogan-Page.
–––––– (2005), “The Post-Global Brand,” Journal of Brand
Management, 12 (5), 319–24.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity,” Journal of Market-
ing, 57 (January), 1–22.
–––––– (2007), Strategic Brand Management, 3d ed. Upper Sad-
dle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kim, Chung K. and Jay Y. Chung (1997), “Brand Popularity,
Country Image and Market Share: An Empirical Study,” Jour-
nal of International Business Studies, 28 (2), 361–86.
Kwak, Hyokjin, Anupam Jaju, and Trina Larsen (2006), “Con-
sumer Ethnocentrism Offline and Online: The Mediating Role
of Marketing Efforts and Personality Traits in the United
States, South Korea, and India,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34 (3), 367–85.
LaFromboise, Teresa, Hardin L.K. Coleman, and Jennifer Ger-
ton (1993), “Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence
and Theory,” Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 395–412.
Moore, Latetia V. and Ana V. Diez-Roux (2006), “Associations
of Neighborhood Characteristics with the Location and Type
of Food Stores,” American Journal of Public Health, 96 (2),
325–31.
O’Hare, William P. (1987), “Blacks and Whites: One Market or
Two?” American Demographics, 9 (3), 44–48.
Padilla, Amado M. and William Perez (2003), “Acculturation,
Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New Perspective,”
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25 (1), 35–55.
Phinney, Jean S. (1996). “When We Talk About American Eth-
nic Groups, What Do We Mean?” American Psychologist, 51
(9), 918–27.
––––––, Cindy L. Cantu, and Dawn A. Kurtz (1997), “Ethnic
and American Identity as Predictors of Self-Esteem Among
African American, Latino, and White Adolescents,” Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 26 (2), 165–85.
Pitts, Robert E., D. Joel Whalen, Robert O’Keefe, and Vernon
Murray (1989), “Black and White Response to Culturally
Targeted Television Commercials: A Values-Based
Approach,” Psychology & Marketing, 6 (4), 311–28.
Pollit, Ernesto (1994), “Poverty and Child Development: Rele-
vance of Research in Developing Countries to the United
States,” Child Development, 65 (2), 283–95.
Roberts, John and Julien Cayla (2009), “Global Branding,” in
The SAGE Handbook of International Marketing, Masaaki
Kotabe and Kristiaan Helsen, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 346–60.
Roth, Martin S. (1995), “The Effects of Culture and Socioeco-
nomics on the Performance of Global Brand Image Strate-
gies,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (May), 163–75.
Schaninger, Charles M., Jacques C. Bourgeois, and Christian W.
Buss (1985), “French–English Canadian Subcultural Con-
sumption Differences,” Journal of Marketing, 49 (Spring),
82–92.
Schmitt, Neal (1996), “Uses and Abuses of Coefficient Alpha,”
Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 350–53.
Schuiling, Isabelle and Jean N. Kapferer (2004), “Real Differ-
ences Between Local and International Brands: Strategic
Implications for International Marketers,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 12 (4), 97–112.
Schwartz, Joe (1987), “Hispanic Opportunities,” American
Demographics, 9 (5), 56–59.
Shimp, Terence A., Saeed Samiee, and Thomas J. Madden
(1993), “Countries and Their Products: A Cognitive Structure
Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
21 (4), 323–30.
Solomon, Michael R. (2008), Consumer Behavior, 8th ed.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Global Brands in the United States 105
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L.
Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates
Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34
(1), 53–65.
Thompson, Craig J. and Zeynep Arsel (2004), “The Starbucks
Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences of
Glocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (1),
631–42.
Thorelli, Hans B. (1981), “Consumer Policy for the Third
World,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 5 (3), 197–211.
Tung, Rosalie L. (2008), “The Cross-Cultural Research Imper-
ative: The Need to Balance Cross-National and Intra-National
Diversity,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (1),
41–46.
U.S. Census Bureau (2009), Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2009, 128th ed. Washington, DC: Government Print-
ing Office.
——— (2010), State and County QuickFacts, (accessed May
26, 2010), [available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/
qfd/states/00000.html].
Valencia, Humberto (1989), “Hispanic Values and Subcultural
Research,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
17 (1), 23–28.
Veblen, Thorstein (1899), The Theory of the Leisure Class. New
York: Macmillan.
Wilkes, Robert E. and Humberto Valencia (1986), “Shopping
Related Characteristics of Mexican-Americans and Blacks,”
Psychology and Marketing, 3 (4), 247–59.
Zarantonello, Lia and Bernd H. Schmitt (2010), “Using the
Brand Experience Scale to Profile Consumers and Predict
Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Brand Management,
forthcoming.
Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), “The Impact of
Accessible Identities on the Evaluation of Global Versus Local
Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524–37.
106 Journal of International Marketing
THE AUTHORS
Claudiu V. Dimofte is Assistant Professor of Marketing
at the McDonough School of Business, Georgetown
University, where he specializes in consumer informa-
tion processing and attitude formation. A native of
Romania, he holds a doctorate in Marketing from the
University of Washington in Seattle. His current
research focuses on implicit consumer cognition, includ-
ing unconscious processing of brand and marketing
communications information.
Johny K. Johansson is McCrane/Shaker Professor of
International Business and Marketing at the McDo-
nough School of Business, Georgetown University,
where he specializes in international marketing strategy
and consumer decision making. A native of Sweden, he
holds a doctorate in Marketing from the University of
California at Berkeley. His current research focuses on
global branding issues in multinational corporations
and their stock market performance.
Richard P. Bagozzi is Dwight F. Benton Professor of
Behavioral Science in Management at the Ross School of
Business, University of Michigan, and Professor of Clinical,
Social, and Administrative Science at the College of
Pharmacy, University of Michigan, where he does basic
research into human emotions, decision making, social
identity, and action. He holds a doctorate in Marketing
from Northwestern University. His work has been
applied to the study of consumers, patients, doctors,
salespeople, managers, and organizations.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Chris Janiszewski, Robert Thomas,
and participants in the 2007 MSB Marketing Camp for
helpful comments on previous drafts of this article.
Copyright of Journal of International Marketing is the property of American Marketing Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.