Cultural Influence

on Proneness to Brand Loyalty

Desmond Lam

ABSTRACT. Culture can influence consumers’ attitudes and behavior.

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

KEYWORDS. Culture, brand loyalty, consumer behavior

INTRODUCTION

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

Desmond Lam is Assistant Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business Adminis-

tration, University of Macau, Avenida Padre Tomás Pereira S.J., Taipa, Macau SAR,
People’s Republic of China (E-mail: desmondl@umac.mo).
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 19(3) 2007
Available online at http://jicm.haworthpress.com
© 2007 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J046v19n03_02 7
8 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

While there have been numerous studies on the impact of culture on

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

A REVIEW OF BRAND LOYALTY RESEARCH

The topic of loyalty was first published through the works of Copeland
in 1923 (c.f. Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). Subsequently, there were nu-
merous definitions of the construct along with many different measure-
ment methods employed. Many of these definitions were operational in
nature and hence, very few researchers explored the theoretical mean-
ing of the loyalty construct. Jacoby and Chestnut (1978) cited 53 defini-
tions in their review. In the last two decades, other researchers have
attempted to improve and conceptualize the meaning of loyalty.
The lack of a clear definition did not hamper the progress of loy-
alty measurement techniques. Researchers began by focusing on behav-
ioral measures (e.g., Ehrenberg, 1959; Bass, 1974; Uncles, Ehrenberg
and Hammond, 1995; Bhattacharya, 1997; East, 1997; Morrison and
Schmittlein, 2001). These measures of consumer loyalty included con-
sumer purchase sequence, frequency of purchase, proportion of purchase,
and probability of purchase (Jacoby and Chestnut, 1978). In many of
the behavioral studies, the researchers examined consumers’ repeat pur-
chases under various product consumption contexts. Ehrenberg (1959)
was among the first to examine regular patterns of consumer purchases,
assuming a stochastic process, based on behavioral measures. Ehrenberg
and Goodhardt (1970) extended the stochastic preference models into
multi-brand buying. Bass (1974) agreed that brand choice could be sub-
stantially stochastic and presented a general theory of stochastic prefer-
ence. He concluded that deterministic prediction (i.e., through cognition)
of individual behavior would achieve limited success.
 Desmond Lam 9

While these behavioral studies claimed successes in estimating and

forecasting aggregated customer loyalty effects, critics argued that these
studies failed to understand the underlying reasons (perhaps, other than
by random effect) as to why customers behave the way they do. Some
researchers argued that these measures of consumer loyalty are based
only on the self-report of purchase decisions. Moreover, they do not
distinguish true loyalty from customer loyalty that is often associated
with consistent purchasing of one brand because there are no other
choices readily available or because a brand offers a long series of deals,
etc. (Day, 1969).
This deficiency of behavioral studies has sparked other researchers to
look into the attitudinal element of brand loyalty (Day, 1969; Dick and
Basu, 1994; Jarvis and Wilcox, 1997; Ha, 1998; Iwasaki and Havitz,
1998; Bennett and Bove, 2001). Oliver (1999) defined loyalty as a com-
mitment to repurchase a product consistently despite situational and
marketing influences. Day (1969) viewed brand loyalty as comprising
both repeated purchases and strong internal disposition. Jacoby and
Chestnut (1978) concluded a composite definition of brand loyalty that
includes both attitudinal and behavioral components. They defined
brand loyalty as a biased behavioral response to one or more brands,
which included certain psychological processes. Dick and Basu (1994)
viewed loyalty as the relationship between relative attitude and repeat
patronage. More recently, Baloglu (2002) found that truly loyal custom-
ers had more emotional commitment to a brand than any other groups of
customers. In Oliver’s (1999) dynamic framework, customers actually
progress from cognitive commitment to emotional bonding as their loy-
alty increases. Apparently, emotive customers seem to be most loyal
(Fournier and Yao, 1997; Coyles and Gokey, 2002).
Many researchers now agree that brand loyalty is complex and
should be a multidimensional construct. However, many previous stud-
ies seemed to have neglected the impact of culture on individuals’ brand
loyalty behavior. More importantly, the topic on proneness to brand loy-
alty was explored only by a few researchers. For example, Shim and
Gehrt (1996) examined the differences in shopping orientation between
ethnic groups and found that White and Hispanics students showed sig-
nificantly more brand loyalty proneness than Native American students.
They defined proneness to brand loyalty as “an orientation character-
ized by the degree to which a consumer repetitively chooses the same
brands and stores” (Shim and Gehrt, 1996, p. 313). Thus, the proneness
to brand loyalty may be viewed as synonymous to the degree of brand
loyalty. This definition was similar to that defined by Raju (1980), who
10 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

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

REVIEW ON CULTURE
AND THE RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

Culture can influence consumers’ thoughts and actions (Herbig,

1998; Trompenaars, 1994), affecting their decision-making styles and
purchase behaviors. The concept of culture is complex and widely re-
searched (Inkeles and Levinson, 1969; Hofstede, 1980; Trompenaars,
1994; Triandis, 1995). Culture can be defined as “the collective pro-
gramming of the mind, which distinguishes the members of one group
or category of people from another” (Hofstede, 1997, p. 5). In one of
the most widely cited work, Hofstede (1980, 1994), through an exten-
sive study conducted over fifty-three countries, identified four basic
dimensions of differences among national cultures. Over the years,
Hofstede’s research has received some criticism especially regarding
issues on generalization (Yeh, 1988). Still, many researchers adopted
his works when studying cross-cultural influences on attitudes and be-
haviors (Fam and Merrilees, 1998; Liu, Sudharshan and Hamer, 2000;
Mortenson, 2002). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were insightful and
often used as the basis for cultural differentiation (Liu, Sudharshan and
Hamer, 2000). Hofstede (1991) proposed that these same dimensions
that were found to differentiate among national cultures might also be
applied to within-culture (i.e., individual-level or subculture) studies in
countries. Hofstede’s cultural dimensions at the individual level have
received extensive investigation in a wide variety of research studies
(e.g., Aycan et al., 2000; Wheeler, 2002). In this study, Hofstede’s di-
mensions were used to examine individual-level or within-culture dif-
ferences on proneness to brand loyalty.
Hofstede’s first dimension is Individualism, the degree to which mem-
bers within a society are integrated into groups. This dimension refers
 Desmond Lam 11

to individuals’ attitude towards the concept of self (Dawar, Parker and

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

H1: Individuals who scored high in individualism have greater

proneness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.

Uncertainty Avoidance is the extent to which a culture programs its

members to feel uncomfortable in unstructured situations such as novel,
unknown, surprising, or unusual situations (Hofstede, 1980). Cultures
high in uncertainty avoidance do not readily accept changes or uncer-
tainty compared with those low in the same dimension. Thus, one would
expect individuals who scored high in uncertainty avoidance to have
higher proneness to brand loyalty than those who scored low in this di-
mension as implied by the following hypothesis:

H2: Individuals who scored high in uncertainty avoidance have

greater proneness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.

Masculinity is a preference for assertiveness, achievement, and mate-

rial success. Femininity, on the other hand, stands for a preference for
relationships, modesty, and caring for the weak (Hofstede, 1980). Indi-
viduals with high masculinity tend to assert more control over their own
decision making and processes. As such, they may be less influenced by
marketing mixes, social and group norms. These individuals buy what
they like and stick to brands they like, hence, showing more proneness
to brand loyalty (Hypothesis 3).

H3: Individuals who scored high in masculinity have greater prone-

ness to be brand loyal than those who scored low.
12 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Power Distance is the extent to which the members within a society

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

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

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND OUTCOME

Sample and Measures

A survey was conducted on a convenience sample of 228 respondents.
The respondents were business undergraduates at two public universities in
Australia. The age of the respondents ranged from 17 to 49 years, with an
average of 21.6 years. Approximately 57% of the respondents were female.
Each respondent was given a questionnaire comprising a number of
items on issues relating to their cultural values and proneness to brand
loyalty (see Appendix). These items were measured on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Informa-
tion on age, gender, and number of months/years spent in Australia was
also collected from the respondents.
The items on cultural values were adapted from Dorfman and Howell
(1988), which were based on Hofstede’s (1966) four main cultural di-
mensions (five original items each), and were used by Robertson and
Hoffman (2000). The items on proneness to brand loyalty (three origi-
nal items), the only dependent variable in this study, were developed
by Sproles and Kendall (1986) and were also adopted by Shim and
Gehrt (1996). For preliminary analysis, a number of exploratory factor
analyses and reliability tests were conducted. Items with rotated factor
 Desmond Lam 13

loading less than 0.4 were discarded. For further analysis of the factor
structure, the data were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
with AMOS 5.0. The standardized regression weights and coefficient
alphas for each construct are reported in Table 1. The final Cronbach’s
alphas were between 0.555 and 0.778. According to Nunnally (1967),
reliabilities in the range of 0.5 to 0.6 are satisfactory in the early stages
of research. Hence, the obtained coefficients were deemed sufficient
given the exploratory nature of this study.
As a preliminary analysis to understand the relationship of the cultural
dimensions to each other, these were correlated. Table 2 shows the correla-
tions between each dimension found in this study. Uncertainty avoidance
was found to be negatively correlated to individualism, masculinity, and
power distance. In addition, power distance was positively correlated to
masculinity.

TABLE 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability Results

No. Description Original No. of Items Final Item Standardized Cronbach’s

No. of After No. (See Regression Alpha
Items Screening Appendix) Weight*
1 Individualism 5 2 1 0.603
0.660
2 0.818
2 Uncertainty avoidance 5 4 6 0.522
7 0.695
8 0.629 0.740
9 0.726
3 Masculinity 5 4 11 0.653
12 0.434
13 0.789 0.778
14 0.848
4 Power distance 5 4 16 0.548
17 0.572
18 0.414 0.555
19 0.420
5 Proneness to brand loyalty 3 2 21 0.784
0.663
22 0.591
*p ⬍ 0.05.
14 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 2. Correlations Between Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimension Uncertainty Power Distance Masculinity

Avoidance
Individualism ⫺0.199** 0.083 0.031
Uncertainty avoidance – ⫺0.415*** ⫺0.148*
Power distance – – 0.724***

*p ⬍ 0.10, **p ⬍ 0.05, ***p ⬍ 0.01.

RESULTS

The influence of cultural dimensions on self-reported proneness

to brand loyalty was tested using multiple regression. All four coeffi-
cients were loaded in the same direction as hypothesized (see Model 1
in Table 3).
Model 1, on the whole, fits very well to the data. A ratio of Chi-square
to degrees-of-freedom (CMIN/DF) of less than 2.00 has been suggested
by a number of researchers (Hoelter, 1983; Brooke, Russell and Price,
1988) to indicate an excellent model fit. For the comparative fit index
(CFI), Bentler (1990) recommends 0.90 as a minimum value that sug-
gests a good model fit, and Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest that root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value at or below 0.05 in-
dicates a close fit of the model. In addition, Hoelter suggests a critical N
above 200 for a satisfactory sample. The results obtained by Model 1
showed values better than those suggested by these researchers.
Referring again to Model 1 (Table 3), individualism and uncertainty
avoidance were found to have positive influence on proneness to brand
loyalty. Overall, the dependent variable’s R2 was 0.208. To rule out the
possibilities that it was cultural dimensions and not demographics that
influenced the proneness to brand loyalty, another multiple regression
was performed. Referring to Model 2, age and number of years spent in
Australia were added into a second model as independent variables. The
results showed that despite accounting for demographics, the cultural
predictors still load significantly on the dependent variable. In fact, the
dependent variable’s R2 had not improved significantly and the good-
ness-of-fit indicators remained relatively stable. In addition, the prone-
ness to brand loyalty scores were compared between gender groups
(Malemean = 3.345 and Femalemean = 3.511) using independent t-test.
No significant difference in proneness to brand loyalty between male and
 Desmond Lam 15

TABLE 3. Multiple Regression Analysis Showing the Effects of Cultural Dimen-

sions on Proneness to Brand Loyalty

Predictor Dependent Variable:

Proneness to Brand Loyalty
Model 1 Model 2
Standardized Standardized
Regression Weight Regression Weight
Individualism 0.212* 0.212*
Uncertainty Avoidance 0.389* 0.387*
Power Distance ⫺0.202 ⫺0.209
Masculinity 0.189 0.196
Age Not included 0.056
Number of years in Australia Not included ⫺0.037
Model R2, CMIN/DF 0.208, 1.144 0.212, 1.275
CFI, RMSEA, Hoelter 0.983, 0.025, 253 0.960, 0.035, 220

*p ⬍ 0.05.

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

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The results of this exploratory study suggest that individual’s prone-

ness to brand loyalty may be influenced by their cultural values. It further
demonstrates that culture can have a major influence on how individuals
act and think. More specifically, the findings of this study supported H1
in which respondents who scored high in individualism were less likely to
switch brands. Generally, individuals who scored low in this dimension
are more likely to follow group norms. Their brand loyalty behavior may
follow those of their in-group members and change accordingly. As such,
these individuals are more likely to switch brands frequently. However,
individuals who scored high in individualism pursue their individual
goals and make their own purchases. These individuals are more likely to
stick to their adopted brands regardless of outside influence.
16 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

This study also found that people who scored high in uncertainty
avoidance had greater proneness to brand loyalty. This finding provided
firm support for H2. High uncertainty avoidance means less risk-taking
appetite and, consequently, less willingness to switch brands that are
previously adopted. People who scored high in this dimension avoid un-
certainty by staying with brands they are comfortable with.
People with high masculinity tend to assert more control over their
own decision-making processes. They may be less influenced by mar-
keting mixes, social and group norms. As such, they buy what they like
and stick to brands they like. Hence, one would expect these people to
show more proneness to brand loyalty. While a positive relationship be-
tween masculinity and one’s proneness to brand loyalty was found in
this study, it was not statistically significant. Hence, H3 cannot be sup-
ported in this study.
Individuals with low power distance focus on purchasing brands they
like and are less influenced by high power group. As such, they are more
likely to stick to brands they have earlier adopted. On the other hand,
those with high power distance are more likely to switch their brands
constantly to suit their power groups. Although this study found the re-
lationship between power distance and proneness to brand loyalty in the
same direction as hypothesized, it too was not statistically significant.
Hence, H4 cannot be supported in this study.
Few studies have evaluated the significance of cultural influence on
proneness to brand loyalty. The results from this research would en-
hance existing marketing knowledge and the current literature on brand
loyalty studies. It has important implications for companies selling not
just across national cultures but also within any geographical bound-
aries. Soliciting brand loyalty has never been more challenging for
these companies. Coupled with increasing global economic uncertainty
and intense competition in the global marketplace, companies have to
improve their business models to not only attract and satisfy consumers
but also to form sustainable relationships with them. A successful inter-
national marketer would always seek to understand the cultural modes
of the country, which is the focus of its marketing strategies. In tra-
ditional marketing, such knowledge about the impact or non-impact of
specific cultural characteristics can help international managers to an-
ticipate potential benefits and problems in cross-cultural interactions
(Brodbeck et al., 2002). Thus, an ability to breakdown and identify
those cultural factors that can affect (or not affect) consumers’ prone-
ness to be brand loyal will certainly aid in improving marketing and
business strategies.
 Desmond Lam 17

Limitations and Direction for Future Research

It is important to note that any extrapolation of the results must be made

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

REFERENCES
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G., and Kurshid, A.
(2000). Impact of Culture on Human Resource Management Practices: A 10-Country
Comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review 49, 192-221.
Baloglu, S. (2002). Dimensions of Customer Loyalty–Separating Friends from Well
Wishers. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, (2), 47-59.
Bass, F. (1974). The Theory of Stochastic Preference and Brand Switching. Journal of
Marketing Research 11(2), 1-20.
Bennett, R. and Bove, L. (2001). Identifying the Key Issues for Measuring Loyalty.
Australasian Journal of Market Research 9(7), 27-44.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Fit Indexes, Lagrange Multipliers, Constraint Changes, and In-
complete Data in Structural Models. Multivariate Behavioral Research 25(2),
163-172.
Bhattacharya, C. B. (1997). Is Your Brand’s Loyalty Too Much, Too Little, or Just
Right? Explaining Deviations in Loyalty from the Dirichlet Norm. International
Journal of Research in Marketing 14, 421-435.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., Javidan, M., and Kroll, F. G. (2002). Leadership Made in
Germany: Low on Compassion, High on Performance. Academy of Management
Executive 16(1), 16-30.
18 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Brooke, P. P., Jr., Russell, D. W., and Price, J. (1988). Discriminant Validation of Mea-
sures of Job Satisfaction, Job Involvement, and Organizational Commitment. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology 73(2), 139-145.
Browne, M. W. and Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
(pp. 132-162). In Kenneth A. Bollen, and Scott J. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural
Equation Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chow, C. W., Deng, J. F., and Ho, J. L. (2000). The Openness of Knowledge Sharing
Within Organizations: A Comparative Study of the United States and the People’s
Republic of China. Journal of Management Accounting Research 12, 65-85.
Coyles, S. and Gokey, T. (2002). Customer Retention Is Not Enough. McKinsey Quar-
terly 2, 80-89.
Dawar, N., Parker, P. M., and Price, L. J. (1996). A Cross-Cultural Study of Interpersonal
Information Exchange. Journal of International Business Studies 27(3), 497-516.
Day, G. (1969). A Two-Dimensional Concept of Brand Loyalty. Journal of Advertis-
ing Research 9(3), 29-35.
Dick, A. and Basu, K. (1994). Customer Loyalty: Toward an Integrated Conceptual
Framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 22(2), 99-113.
Dorfman, P. and Howell, J. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture and Effective Lead-
ership Patterns: Hofstede Revisited (pp. 127-150). In R. N. Farmer and E. G. McGoun
(Eds.), Advances in International Comparative Management. New York: JAI Press.
East, R. (1997). Consumer Behavior–Advances and Applications in Marketing. London:
Prentice-Hall Europe.
Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1959). The Pattern of Consumer Purchases, Applied Statistics
8(1), 26-41.
Ehrenberg, A. and Goodhardt, G. J. (1970). A Model of Multi-Brand Buying. Journal
of Marketing Research 7(2), 77-84.
Ehrenberg, A. and Goodhardt, G. J. (1996). Towards an Integrated Theory of Con-
sumer Behavior. Journal of the Market Research Society 38(4), 395-427.
Fam, K. S. and Merrilees, B. (1998). Cultural Values and Person Selling. International
Marketing Review 15(4), 246-256.
Fournier, S. and Yao, J. (1997). Reviving Brand Loyalty: A Reconceptualization
Within the Framework of Consumer-Brand Relationships. International Journal of
Research in Marketing 14, 451-472.
Ha, C. L. (1998). The Theory of Reasoned Action Applied to Brand Loyalty. The Jour-
nal of Product and Brand Management 7(1), 51-61.
Herbig, P. A. (1998). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Marketing. New York: The Interna-
tional Business Press.
Hoelter, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures: Goodness-of-Fit Indices.
Sociological Methods & Research 11, 325-344.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-
Related Values. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1984). The Interaction Between National and Organizational Value Sys-
tems. Journal of Management Studies 22(7), 347-357.
 Desmond Lam 19

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Business Cultures. UNESCO Courier 47(4), 12-16.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius Connection: From Cultural Roots
to Economic Growth. Organizational Dynamics 16(4), 5-21.
Hui, M., Joy, A., Kim, C., and Laroche, M. (1993). Equivalence of Lifestyle Dimensions
Across Four Major Subcultures in Canada. Journal of International Consumer Mar-
keting 5(3), 15-35.
Inkeles, A. and Levinson, D. J. (1969). National Character: The Study of Modal Per-
sonality and Sociocultural Systems (pp. 111-157). In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson
(Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology 4. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Iwasaki, Y. and Havitz, M. E. (1998). A Path Analytic Model of the Relationships Be-
tween Involvement, Psychological Commitment, and Loyalty. Journal of Leisure
Research 30(2), 256-277.
Jacoby, J. and Chestnut, W. (1978). Brand Loyalty–Measurement and Management.
New York: Wiley.
James, D. L. (1995). The Executive Guide to Asia-Pacific Communications. Australia:
Allen & Unwin.
Jarvis, L. and Wilcox, J. (1997). True Vendor Loyalty or Simply Repeat Purchase Be-
havior? Industrial Marketing Management 6, 9-14.
Kanwar, R. and Pagiavlas, N. (1992). When are Higher Social Class Consumers More
and Less Brand Loyal than Lower Social Class Consumers? The Role of Mediating
Variables. Advances in Consumer Research 19, 589-595.
Liu, B. S., Sudharshan, D., and Hamer, L. O. (2000). After-Service Response in
Service Quality Assessment: A Real-Time Updating Model Approach. Journal of
Service Marketing 14(2), 160-177.
Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and Psychology. USA: Wadsworth.
Morrison, D. G. and Schmittlein, D. C. (1988). Generalizing the NBD Model for Con-
sumer Purchases: What are the Implications and is it Worth the Effort? Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics 6(2), 145-159.
Mortenson, S. T. (2002). Sex, Communication Values, and Cultural Values: Individu-
alism-Collectivism as a Mediator of Sex Differences in Communication Values in
Two Cultures. Communication Reports 15(1), 57-70.
Nunnally, J. C. (1967), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence Consumer Loyalty? Journal of Marketing 63, 33-44.
Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum Stimulation Level: Its Relationship to Personality, Demo-
graphics, Exploratory Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 7(12), 272-282.
Robertson, C. J. and Hoffman, J. J. (2000). How Different Are We? An Investigation of
Confucian Values in United States. Journal of Managerial Issues 12(1), 34-47.
Shim, S. and Gehrt, K. C. (1996). Hispanic and Native American Adolescents: An Ex-
ploratory Study of Their Approach to Shopping. Journal of Retailing 72(3), 307-324.
Sproles, G., B. and Kendall, E. L. (1986). A Methodology for Profiling Consumers’
Decision-making Styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 20(2), 267-279.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & Collectivism. USA: Westview Press.
20 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the Waves of Culture–Understanding Diversity in

Global Business. USA: IRWIN.
Uncles, M., Ehrenberg, A. S. C., and Hammond, K. (1995). Patterns of Buyer Behav-
ior: Regularities, Models, and Extensions. Marketing Science 14(3), 71-78.
Wheeler, K. G. (2002). Cultural Values in Relation to Equity Sensitivity Within and
Across Cultures. Journal of Managerial Psychology 17(7), 612-627.
Yeh, R. S. (1988). Values of American, Japanese and Taiwanese Managers in Taiwan: A
Test of Hofstede’s Framework. Academy of Management Proceedings, 106-110.

SUBMITTED: March 2005

FIRST REVISION: November 2005
SECOND REVISION: April 2006
ACCEPTED: June 2006

doi:10.1300/J046v19n03_02

APPENDIX

INDIVIDUALISM/COLLECTIVISM

1. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards.

2. Group success is more important than individual success.
3. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals to benefit group
success. (Discarded)
4. Being accepted by the members of your assignment group is very
important. (Discarded)
5. Team managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals
suffer. (Discarded)

UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE

6. Rules and regulations are important because they inform those who are
working what the organization expects of them.
7. Standard operating procedures are helpful to those on the job.
8. Instructions for operations are important for those on the job.
9. Team managers expect their members to closely follow instructions and
procedures.
 Desmond Lam 21

10. It is important to have task requirements and instructions spelled out in

detail so that those who are working on the tasks always know what they
are expected to do. (Discarded)

MASCULINITY

11. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a
man.
12. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active forcible approach
which is typical of men.
13. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for
women.
14. It is preferable to have a man in a high-level position rather than a
woman.
15. Men solve problems with logical analysis; women solve problems with
intuition. (Discarded)

POWER DISTANCE

16. Those in charge should make most decisions without consulting those
who are not.
17. Those in charge should not delegate important tasks to those who are
not.
18. Those not in charge should not disagree with the decisions of those in
charge.
19. Those in charge should seldom ask for the opinions of those who are not
in charge.
20. It is frequently necessary for those in charge to use authority and power
when dealing with those who are not. (Discarded)

PRONENESS TO BRAND LOYALTY

21. I have favorite brands that I buy over and over.

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