Download Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning

Responsiveness to Global and Local
Consumer Culture Positioning:
A Personality and Collective
Identity Perspective
Stanford A. Westjohn, Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson
ABSTRACT
Marketers have increasingly employed positioning strategies to appeal to either global or local consumer cultures. However, little is known about the characteristics of consumers most likely to respond to such positioning. The authors find
that the collective identities of global and national identification are strongly related to responsiveness to global and
local consumer culture positioning (GCCP and LCCP, respectively). The results also show that personality predisposes
people to adopt collective identities. The personality traits of openness to experience and agreeableness are significantly
related to global and national identity, respectively. On the basis of these findings, the authors present implications with
regard to developing GCCP and LCCP strategies that are congruent with consumers’ personality and associated collective identity.
Keywords: global and local consumer culture positioning, global identity, national identity, attitude toward the ad,
five-factor theory of personality, self-verification theory
n increasingly interconnected global marketplace—spurred by dramatic growth in worldwide
investment and trade, the emergence of global
media and the Internet, and the expansion of world
travel in recent decades (Steenkamp and De Jong
2010)—presents a fundamental challenge to companies
around the world (Iversen and Hem 2011; Nijssen and
Douglas 2011). A more global marketplace has led firms
in search of global consumer segments—that is, consumer groups spanning national borders who attach
similar meanings to people, places, and things (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). In response to the emergence of a global consumer culture, Alden, Steenkamp,
A
Stanford A. Westjohn is Assistant Professor of Marketing & International Business, Department of Marketing & International Business, University of Toledo (e-mail: [email protected]).
Nitish Singh is Associate Professor of International Business, Department of International Business, Saint Louis University (e-mail:
[email protected]). Peter Magnusson is Assistant Professor of International Marketing, Department of Marketing, Northern Illinois University (e-mail: [email protected]).
58 Journal of International Marketing
and Batra (1999) introduce and validate the concept of
global consumer culture positioning (GCCP) as a marketing strategy to reach global consumer segments, contrasting it with local consumer culture positioning
(LCCP). They find that more than 85% of advertisements could be classified as exhibiting one of these
dominant cultural positioning strategies. However, to
successfully employ a GCCP or LCCP strategy, marketers must know which strategy, if any, is appropriate
for their target market. Thus, an important question left
unanswered is to determine the characteristics of consumers who find GCCP versus LCCP appealing.
Although Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra establish a third
positioning strategy, foreign consumer culture positioning (FCCP), it was identified in only .5% of U.S. advertisements and less than 4% across seven countries. Thus,
we limit the scope of this study to GCCP versus LCCP.
Journal of International Marketing
©2012, American Marketing Association
Vol. 20, No. 1, 2012, pp. 58–73
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)
Given the prevalence of GCCP versus LCCP in advertising and the central role of positioning in marketing
strategy, this lack of guidance in the marketing literature appears problematic. Steenkamp and De Jong
(2010) suggest that a reason consumer preferences for
global versus local has received limited attention in
prior research may be that it is assumed to be context
dependent on the product–market–company mix.
However, in this study, we posit that consumers vary
systematically and predictably in their attitudes
toward GCCP versus LCCP. At the center of our theoretical framework, we posit that consumers’ global
and national identification explain consumers’ preference for GCCP versus LCCP. Theoretically, this is
grounded in self-verification theory (Swann 1983),
which suggests that consumers seek to confirm their
identities through their beliefs, attitudes, and actions.
In other words, we suggest that consumers will demonstrate more favorable attitudes toward advertising
positioned in such a manner that reflects their respective global or national orientation.
ality predisposes people to adopt such identities (global
vs. national). By linking collective identities directly and
personality traits indirectly to responsiveness to GCCP
and LCCP strategies, the current study helps marketers
create more sophisticated psychographic profiles of consumer segments and better understand when to employ
GCCP or LCCP strategies.
Furthermore, to offer a more complete understanding of
consumers’ responsiveness to GCCP versus LCCP, we
probe deeper into the motivational hierarchy and examine traits that may predispose people to adopting a
global or national identity. Specifically, research indicates that personality traits may predispose people to
adopting global and national identities. Personality
traits shape people’s worldviews and ideological attitudes (Sibley and Duckitt 2009) because personality
tends to influence the nature, outcome, and interpretations of social interactions. This view is supported by
the overarching five-factor theory of personality
(McCrae and Costa 1996), which suggests that personality traits influence individual and social group behavior and therefore have implications on the self.
THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
In summary, conceiving of the world as a single place
compels people to construct identities or views of themselves in relation to the world (i.e., global or national
orientation; Robertson 1992), which has implications
for marketers and the strategies they employ. Furthermore, the development of such identities is proposed to
be influenced by personality traits. Therefore, this study
aims to make two primary contributions to the marketing literature. First, we develop a better understanding
of the consumer who responds to GCCP and LCCP
strategies specifically by investigating the role of collective identity (i.e., global and national identification).
Second, we offer an understanding, based on McCrae
and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory, of how person -
Brewer and Gardner (1996) suggest three levels of identity: individual, relational, and collective. Relational and
collective self-identities most closely relate to social
identities such as global and national identity. The relational level of self is based on personalized relationships
with specific others and related personal networks. Collective selves do not require interpersonal relationships
and instead are depersonalized associations based on
membership in a symbolic group (Brewer and Yuki
2007).
Next, we provide a discussion of global and national
identity, personality, and their theory-based relevance to
GCCP and LCCP. The theory and hypotheses development section is followed by an empirical investigation of
two independent samples on which we test how personality traits influence collective identities (global and
national) and how these collective identities influence
attitudes toward ads that are rich in global (GCCP) or
national (LCCP) imagery. The study concludes with a
discussion of the results of our empirical investigation,
implications for managers, and directions for further
research.
We propose a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) that
is grounded in two theoretical perspectives to account
for the relationships among personality characteristics,
collective identity, and attitude toward GCCP and LCCP
strategies. First, we rely on self-verification theory
(Swann 1983) to explain the relationship between identity and attitude toward GCCP versus LCCP, followed
by a discussion of McCrae and Costa’s (1996) fivefactor theory of personality to account for the relationship between personality traits and identity.
Global and National Identity
In this study, we view identification with a global or
national community as part of a person’s collective identity. It represents an orientation that emphasizes a sense
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 59
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Personality Traits
Response to
Global or Local
Consumer Culture
Positioning
Collective Identity
(Agreeableness /
Openness to Experience)
(Global / National)
Five-Factor Theory of
Personalitya
Self-Verification
Theoryb
aMcCrae
bSwann
and Costa (1996).
(1983).
of belongingness, empathy, and sharing with a particular
community (Sampson and Smith 1957). Identification
with the global community suggests that the person identifies with humankind as a whole, while national identification suggests that the person has a psychological
investment in the national community. These two identities focus on different communities but are not necessarily opposites. Indeed, it may be possible, though
uncommon, that a person identifies with both the
national and global communities, similar to Cannon and
Yaprak’s (2002) conception of local cosmopolitans and
global parochials or Robertson’s (1992) description of an
interpenetration of global and national identities. Both
identities are characterized as depersonalized collective
selves because they are based on self-categorization or
membership in symbolic groups (global/national) rather
than interpersonal relationships (Sedikides and Brewer
2001).
Identity is relevant to positioning strategy because people
tend to develop attitudes and behaviors that reinforce
their identity; for example, Zhang and Khare (2009) find
that global and local identities influence evaluation of
global and local brands. This identity-reinforcing process
is known as self-verification. Self-verification theory
(Swann 1983) evolved from other theories stressing the
need to maintain self-consistency (e.g., Festinger 1957).
According to Swann (1983), people seek to ensure the
stability of, and even take action to defend, their identities. Self-verification is based on an almost innate preference for consistency and stability and suggests that
people tend to construct and maintain their self-views.
People create environments, acquire signs and symbols,
develop attitudes to self-verify, and join groups to validate their collective identity (Swann et al. 2004). In summary, people strive for coherence and stability of the self
and engage in behavior that verifies those self-views.
60 Journal of International Marketing
Identity and Responsiveness to GCCP/LCCP
Advertising
Identifying a creative strategy that is compatible with and
appealing to the target market is important to the success
of an advertising campaign. A core question in the international marketing literature is how to design and implement effective advertising strategies to different consumer
segments around the world (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006). In this vein, Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
(1999) find evidence of distinct advertising positioning
strategies that may hold differing appeal depending on
consumers’ identification with the global or national orientation. A GCCP strategy is defined as a strategy that
“identifies the brand as a symbol of a given global culture” (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999, p. 77). International advertising plays an important role in communicating these signs and symbols associated with a given
culture (Akaka and Alden 2010). To do so, advertisements should associate the brand with signs such as language, aesthetics, and themes that reflect an emerging
global culture. In effect, advertising aims to create the
association that “consumers all over the world consume
a particular brand” or that the brand is a “conduit to feeling at one with the global culture” (Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 1999, p. 77).
The GCCP strategy is contrasted with LCCP, which is
defined as a strategy that “associates the brand with
local cultural meanings, reflects the local culture’s
norms and identities, is portrayed as consumed by local
people in the national culture, and/or is depicted as
locally produced for local people” (Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 1999, p. 77). Examples of LCCP include Budweiser’s and Chevrolet’s advertising in the United States,
both of which depict strong all-American values and
being a part of American history.
The GCCP versus LCCP strategies should not be confused with standardized versus adapted marketing
strategies (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). Whereas GCCP is more feasible to use across different markets than LCCP, it is not the equivalent. For example,
some brands position themselves as LCCP in one market and GCCP in another market—again, consider
Budweiser and Chevrolet, both of which use strong
local appeals in their domestic market but a more
global approach in other markets. Thus, GCCP may be
used as a standardized marketing strategy, but it must
not necessarily be so.
and in line with related empirical evidence, we advance
the following hypotheses:
H1: The positive influence of global identification
on attitude toward GCCP is greater than that
of national identity on attitude toward GCCP.
H2: The positive influence of national identification on attitude toward LCCP is greater than
that of global identity on attitude toward
LCCP.
Personality
Differences in personality or identity influence consumer perceptions of advertising and consequently call
for compatible approaches to advertising strategy (De
Mooij and Hofstede 2010). This study examines social
identity, which in part defines a person’s self-concept
that serves to specify attitudes, emotions, and behaviors
(Hogg 2003). It does so through the process of self-verification, whereby a person strives to reinforce his or her
self-identity through attitudes and behaviors (Swann
1983). Therefore, self-verification theory suggests that
attitude toward an ad will be positive when the advertisement is imbued with imagery that is representative of
a person’s identity. In the context of the current study,
people with a global identity would have a positive attitude toward ads that project global imagery (i.e.,
GCCP), while people with a national identity would
have a positive attitude toward ads that project national
imagery (i.e., LCCP). In each case, positioning of the
advertisement (global or local) reinforces the identity of
the individual.
Prior empirical findings also support our theoretical predictions. For example, global-oriented consumers are
more likely to hold positive attitudes toward global
brands (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Steenkamp
and De Jong 2010; Zhang and Khare 2009), engage in
purchase behavior that is considered socially and environmentally responsible (Nijssen and Douglas 2008),
and have an orientation toward technology readiness
and usage (Westjohn et al. 2009). In contrast, nationaloriented consumers are more likely to hold consumerethnocentric beliefs (Keillor et al. 1996) and evaluate
products on the basis of the cultural congruity between
the product and themselves (Steenkamp, Batra, and
Alden 2003; Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). Orth,
Malkewitz, and Bee (2010) also find that people hold
more favorable attitudes toward brands whose portrayal in advertisements is congruent with their selfconcept. Thus, on the basis of self-verification theory
In-depth exploration of various consumer behaviors is
not possible without inclusion of consumer personality
(Sujan 2001), and researchers suggest that personality
accounts for more variance in behavior than has been
identified (Mowen 2000). Research incorporating personality variables in the consumer context can help us
develop integrated conceptual frameworks for understanding consumers as dispositional, goal-striving, and
narrative entities and allow for development of better
targeted communications (Baumgartner 2002). One of
the most widely accepted conceptions of personality is
based on five broad domains of personality, which have
been shown to define human personality at the highest
level of organization (Goldberg 1993). The five traits
are as follows: (1) agreeableness, (2) openness to experience, (3) extraversion, (4) conscientiousness, and
(5) neuroticism. In the marketing domain, recent
research has related the “Big Five” personality traits to,
for example, consumer preference for different brand
personality types (Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson 2009), empathetic responses to advertising (Mooradian, Matzler, and Szykman 2008), and consumer brand
loyalty (Lin 2010).
Drawing on the five elemental personality traits,
McCrae and Costa (1996) develop a five-factor theory
of personality to provide a complete model of personality that accounts for influences outside the five basic
traits. A key element is referred to as “characteristic
adaptations,” which are acquired skills, habits, and attitudes. Relevant to the current research is that characteristic adaptations include self-concept or the identity that
provides a “sense of purpose and coherence to life”
(McCrae and Costa 1996, p. 70). It is this component of
the five-factor theory of personality that directly corresponds to global and national identities. McCrae and
Costa (1996) suggest that information is selectively represented in the self-concept in ways consistent with per-
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 61
sonality traits. Thus, within the framework of the fivefactor theory of personality, personality traits influence
the formation of identities.
Personality and Global/National Identity
Studies have recognized that it is important that personality and culture be analyzed together because they
mutually constitute each other and cannot be reduced
to one or the other (Kitayama et al. 1997). Indeed,
research has shown that the five-factor model reflects
both individual differences in personality and components of collective identity (Hofstede and McCrae
2004). While the five-factor theory of personality provides the theoretical framework and justification for
linking personality traits to collective identity, there has
been no examination of the relationship between specific traits and identities. Consistent with prior research
on the five-factor model (e.g., Mooradian, Matzler, and
Szykman 2008), we focus primarily on the dimensions
with strong theoretical links to the identity and advertising positioning strategies in focus. Thus, we consider
two of the five personality traits that have the strongest
theoretical justification: openness to experience and
agreeableness. Thus, we not only test the claim of
McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality that traits are related to identity but also posit
specific relationships between openness/agreeableness
and global/national identities. For completeness, we
also include the remaining three personality traits, but
we do not offer specific hypotheses for these dimensions. Next, we discuss each trait and its relationship to
global and national identity.
Agreeableness. The agreeableness trait is described by
adjectives such as “appreciative,” “forgiving,” “generous,” “kind,” “sympathetic,” and “trusting” (McCrae
and John 1992). It has been associated with affiliative
strivings and so-called getting-along goals, in addition
to being identified as an important factor in forming
reciprocal alliances and the pursuit of relationship goals
(Roberts and Robins 2000). Agreeableness also entails a
strong interpersonal orientation relating willingness to
interact within groups with seeking group harmony
(Lun and Bond 2006). In other words, agreeableness is
strongly associated with interpersonal relationships and
maintaining within-group harmony (Lun and Bond
2006).
According to these arguments, agreeableness should be
more related to a collective identity that provides a
structure for generating interpersonal harmony.
62 Journal of International Marketing
National identity provides such a structure because it
offers symbolic association with a group of people who
are easily accessible within national confines (Smith
1991). Consequently, people who are high in agreeableness are expected to seek group harmony with their ingroup, national-level collective identity rather than with
the global-level collective identity, which subsumes a
larger and less accessible group of people outside the
national confines. In other words, agreeableness tends
to predispose people to be nonconfrontational and
accommodating to those with whom they come in
immediate contact. Thus, maintaining a positive and
amenable relationship will more likely be related to
developing a national identity because the vast majority
of everyday contact people experience is with others
from their own local community.
A relationship with global identity is not as clear. Lun
and Bond (2006) argue that a person high on agreeableness is also low in openness to out-groups because this
serves to assign a higher level of relationship harmony
to the members of the immediate in-group. This tendency to be less open to out-groups implies a negative
relationship with global identification. However, it can
also be argued that agreeableness facilitates diplomacy
and cross-cultural understanding. Therefore, we do not
find any theoretical justification suggesting that agreea bleness should be related either positively or negatively
to global identification. Thus, we advance the following
hypothesis:
H3: Agreeableness has a positive relationship with
national identification but no relationship
with global identification.
Openness to Experience. The openness-to-experience
trait is described by adjectives such as “curious,” “imaginative,” “insightful,” “broad interests,” “nontraditional,” and “a preference for variety” (McCrae and
John 1992). Openness to experience is associated with
creative and divergent thinking (McCrae 1987), pursuit
of aesthetic goals and creative activities (Roberts and
Robins 2000), and the exploration of alternative identities (Tesch and Cameron 1987). Openness to experience
is particularly important to the acceptance of and interest in cultures and events outside a person’s own national
boundaries (Arrow and Sundberg 2004). For example, a
global-oriented mind-set is characterized by traits such as
openness to divergent cultural experiences, a willingness
or curiosity to learn about how the world works, the
ability to adapt and recognize complex interconnections,
and the ability to understand the world with all its
complexity, diversity, and ambiguity (Levy et al. 2007).
Furthermore, according to Hannerz (1990), worldmindedness is intrinsically linked to a person’s openness
to other cultures and experiences. Given that people are
acculturated into their national culture from birth, identifying with a community or culture outside the local
culture necessitates some degree of openness to experience. Thus, with the wide variety and diversity of cultures in the world, maintaining openness to divergent
experiences should be positively related to establishing a
global identity.
The relationship between openness to experience and
national identification is uncertain. Social identity
theory suggests that group identification is, in part,
defined by the distinctiveness of a person’s in-group and
awareness of out-groups (Ashforth and Mael 1989);
other factors include prestige of the in-group, salience of
the out-group, and other group formation factors. A
person’s in-group based on his or her own nationality
should be to some extent distinct from out-groups
defined by other nationalities, which may suggest a lack
of identification with the out-groups. However, distinctiveness and awareness do not necessarily imply a lack
of openness to experience or interest in other cultures or
diverse experiences.
lows Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault’s (1990) suggested
data collection technique. To maximize the representativeness and generalizability of the samples, we
instructed students to identify nonstudent participants,
including family, friends, and coworkers over 26 years
of age. Although the samples were not randomly collected, the demographic characteristics exhibited broad
representation in the categories of income and education
levels with equal gender representation and a mean age
of almost 40 years across both samples (see Table 1).
Following the elimination of incomplete cases and
responses from non-U.S. citizens, the final samples consisted of 335 and 205 usable responses.
A minor difference between the two samples is that the
first sample included additional items that served as
filler items for a separate research project. Thus, we
administered the survey to the first sample online in two
stages to avoid respondent fatigue due to survey length
and to minimize the threat of common method variance
(CMV) by separating the items measuring the independ-
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Variable
In summary, prior research suggests a relationship
between openness to experience and global identification; however, there is a lack of theoretical justification
for a relationship between openness to experience and
national identification. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis:
H4: Openness to experience has a positive relationship with global identification but no relationship with national identification.
Sample 1
Sample 2
335
205
Female
54.3%
54.6%
Male
45.7%
45.4%
35.9 years
39.5 years
18–24 years
29.6%
17.1%
25–44 years
36.4%
43.4%
Over 44 years
34.0%
39.5%
Sample Size
Gender
Age
Mean
Income (Annual Household)
METHOD
Sample
Less than $30,000
20.0%
11.7%
$30,000–$59,999
21.8%
25.9%
To examine the proposed framework, we gathered two
independent samples to increase the robustness of our
findings. On the basis of insights gleaned from the first
sample, we made minor modifications to the measurements in the second sample, which we discuss in greater
detail in the next section. The data-gathering methods
were largely similar for both samples. We identified
potential respondents and contacted them with the
assistance of upper-level undergraduate business students at three midwestern U.S. universities, which fol-
$60,000–$89,999
24.8%
23.9%
$90,000–$120,000
19.4%
20.5%
More than $120,000
14.0%
18.0%
High school
12.5%
11.7%
Some college
45.4%
34.6%
Bachelor’s degree
29.9%
31.2%
Graduate degree
12.2%
22.4%
Education
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 63
ent variables from the criterion measures (Podsakoff et
al. 2003). Three to five days after completing the first
part of the survey, which included the measures of personality traits, respondents received an e-mail directing
them to the second part of the survey, which included
measures for global and national identity and advertisements for evaluation. Responses from the second sample
were collected after the first sample and included only
the items of interest for this study, and thus it was
shorter. Consequently, for the second sample, all data
were collected in a single survey rather than being split
into two collection periods as it was for the first sample.
To minimize the threat of CMV, we presented the
variable measurement items in reverse causal order
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). We collected first assessments of
attitude toward GCCP and LCCP ads, followed by
global and national identity, personality traits, and
finally demographics.
Measures, Validity, and Reliability
We used previously validated scales to measure the personality traits (Mowen 2000) and global and national
identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997). Mowen
(2000) developed a shorter version of the extended fivefactor scale that has proved to be valid and reliable and
avoids respondent fatigue; thus, we deemed it appropriate for this study. Der-Karabetian and Ruiz’s (1997)
national and global identity scale were validated in a
study of American immigrants, and the scales are also
highly similar to subsequent operationalizations (see,
e.g., Zhang and Khare 2009).
We need to develop new items to measure GCCP and
LCCP. For the first sample, we gathered a series of
advertisements that reflected GCCP and LCCP strategies. We then subjected the advertisements to both a face
validity test and a survey pretest to assess whether they
indeed represented either a global or local orientation.
First, a panel of four international marketing professors
examined a group of advertisements, four of which we
included in the current study. The professors classified
the advertisements as globally oriented, locally oriented,
or neither. The result of the panel provided support for
the contention that the advertisements were either globally or locally oriented. Then, we pretested the advertisements on four groups of students from two midwestern U.S. universities. We randomly presented these
advertisements (along with several others) to the students and asked them to evaluate the degree that each
advertisement projected a global and a local feeling. On
a seven-point Likert scale, the means for the perception
64 Journal of International Marketing
of local orientation for the two LCCP advertisements
were 4.28 and 4.86. The perceived global orientation of
the GCCP advertisements was 4.68 and 4.35. On the
basis of the combined analysis from the expert panel
and student pretest, we judged the advertisements to be
suitably representative of their intended domains of
LCCP and GCCP. We used a well-established single
item, “I think this ad is bad/good” (Bergkvist and
Rossiter 2007), to measure the respondent’s attitude
toward each ad, which we subsequently used to create
two two-item latent constructs measuring attitude
toward GCCP and attitude toward LCCP.
Despite pretests, the empirical analysis revealed some
problems with composite reliability (CR) and average
variance extracted (AVE) with the GCCP and LCCP
measures in the first sample. Thus, in addition to the
opportunity to verify the overall framework, in the second sample, drawing on the insights gleaned from the
first sample, we developed a second set of advertisements to capture attitude toward GCCP and LCCP. We
developed fictitious GCCP and LCCP advertisements
for three global U.S. brands (Coca-Cola, McDonald’s,
and Nike). For each brand, we created one GCCP
advertisement and one LCCP advertisement for a total
of six advertisements. To minimize confounding effects,
each pair was similar in terms of color and size.
We also asked survey respondents to evaluate the degree
of global or local positioning of the GCCP and LCCP
advertisements, respectively. Mean scores evaluating the
globalness of the GCCP advertisements and localness of
the LCCP advertisements on a seven-point scale suggested that the new set of advertisements were more
extreme indicators of their respective cultural orientation than those in the first sample. The perceived global
orientation of the GCCP advertisements was 5.87, 5.63,
and 5.55, whereas the global advertisements’ perceived
localness was 2.87, 2.57, and 2.80. In contrast, the perceived local orientation of the LCCP advertisements was
5.47, 5.92, and 6.02, and their perceived global orientation was 2.44, 2.29, and 2.11. This suggests that the
respondents clearly viewed the GCCP advertisements as
global advertisements and the LCCP advertisements as
local advertisements. Furthermore, CR and AVE estimates approached accepted standards for GCCP advertisements (CR = .69, AVE = .42) and LCCP advertisements (CR = .68, AVE = .42). The resultant latent
constructs for attitude toward GCCP and LCCP advertisements were highly correlated (r = .72). However, a
follow-up chi-square difference test supports discriminant validity: 2(1) = 22.79, p < .001 (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). Finally, to control for attitude toward
the common brand for the matched pairs (e.g., Nike
GCCP and Nike LCCP), it is recommended that the
measurement error terms be allowed to correlate (Cole,
Ciesla, and Steiger 2007).
Table 2 reports the psychometric properties of the scales
we used, and Table 3 reports the correlations between
model constructs. The independent variables we measured include the two focal personality traits and identity
variables. We also included several demographic variables
to act as control variables and to offer some insight into
the more observable characteristics of individuals demonstrating strong global or national identification.
We assessed the validity and reliability of the latent constructs through a series of psychometric procedures.
First, we assessed a series of measurement models in
LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog et al. 2000). All items significantly loaded on their respective constructs, indicating
unidimensionality and convergent validity; the only
exception was one low-loading national identity item,
which we subsequently omitted. Furthermore, CR and
AVE estimates exceeded recommended thresholds
(Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Fornell and Larcker
1981), providing evidence of reliability.
After confirming the validity and reliability of the individual latent constructs, we ran a confirmatory factor
analysis, which produced respectable fit in both samples
(Sample 1: 2(578) = 1311.73, root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] = .06, nonnormed fit index
[NNFI] = .91, incremental fit index [IFI] = .93, comparative fit index [CFI] = .93, and standardized root mean
square residual [SRMR] = .05; Sample 2: 2(625) =
1115.46, RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .94, CFI = .94,
and SRMR = .06). Discriminant validity was evident in
that there were few substantial modification indexes, the
confidence interval for the phi correlations between pairs
of variables did not contain 1.0 (e.g., Anderson and Gerbing 1988), and the squared phi correlations were less than
the respective variance extracted estimates for all pairs of
constructs (e.g., Fornell and Larcker 1981), excluding the
noted exceptions for the GCCP and LCCP advertisements
we discussed previously.
Finally, we tried to minimize any threat of CMV in the
research design. In the first sample, we split the survey
into two parts, and in the second sample, we placed the
items in reverse causal order. Furthermore, Podsakoff et
al. (2003) suggest controlling for CMV by incorporating
a theoretically unrelated marker variable to parcel out the
effects of CMV. If the structural parameters between the
independent and dependent variables remain stable both
with and without the inclusion of a marker variable, there
is evidence that CMV does not pose a threat (Podsakoff
et al. 2003). We included a well-established measure of
“satisfaction with life” in the study as a marker variable
because it is theoretically unrelated to the constructs of
interest. Including this measure did not alter any of the
relationships of interest in either sample. Thus, the test
suggests that bias due to CMV does not pose a serious
threat to the findings of this study.
RESULTS
We estimated structural equations in LISREL 8.80 to
assess the effect of the two focal personality traits1 on
identity and identity’s subsequent effect on attitudes
toward GCCP and LCCP. The structural model produced acceptable fit in both samples. Although significant chi-squares (Sample 1/Sample 2: 2(590) = 1346.36,
p < .01/2(637) = 1182.18, p < .01) are often the norm
with large, complex models, RMSEA (.06/.06), SRMR
(.05/.06), NNFI (.91/.92), IFI (.93/.93), and CFI
(.93/.93) indicate that the models fit the data
respectably. We summarize the results in Figure 2 and
Table 4; they offer strong support for the proposed
hypotheses relating openness to experience to global
identification and agreeableness to national identification, which in turn affects attitudes toward GCCP and
LCCP.
Specifically, in support of H1, the relationship between
global identification and attitude toward GCCP was
strong and significant ( = .40, p < .001/ = .58, p <
.001), while the relationship between national identity
and GCCP was not significant ( = .10, p > .05/ = .15,
p > .05). Similarly, national identification was more
strongly related to LCCP ( = .54, p < .001/ = .43, p <
.001) than global identification and LCCP ( = –.08,
p > .05/ = .30, p < .01). Although global identification
was significantly related to both GCCP and LCCP in the
second sample, a subsequent Wald test of parameter
constraints offers evidence that the effect of national
identification on attitude toward LCCP is significantly
greater than that of global identification (2(1) = 3.9, p <
.05). Thus, H2 is fully supported across both samples.
The model also supports the hypothesized relationships
on the influence of the personality traits openness to
experience and agreeableness on formation of specific
identities. In support of H3, openness to experience is
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 65
Table 2. Measurement Scales with Source, Item Loadings, CR, and AVE
Sample 1
Sample 2
Agreeableness (Mowen 2000)
CR/AVE
.90/.76
.88/.71
1. Kind to others
Loadings
.83
.71
2. Tender hearted with others
.94
.92
3. Sympathetic
.84
.88
Openness to Experience (Mowen 2000)
CR/AVE
.80/.57
.89/.72
1. Frequently feel highly creative
Loadings
.78
.91
2. Find novel solutions
.63
.74
3. Imaginative
.84
.89
Global Identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997)
CR/AVE
.82/.48
.85/.52
1. I feel like I’m living in a global village.
Loadings
.68
.76
2. I feel what I do could touch someone all around the world.
.73
.75
3. I feel like I am ‘next door neighbors’ with people living in other parts of the world.
.76
.82
4. I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.
.67
.68
5. I feel that people around the world are more similar than dissimilar.
.60
.59
National Identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997)
CR/AVE
.92/.61
.89/.54
1. Being an American plays an important part in my life.
Loadings
.72
.65
2. Nowadays, I consider being an American a special privilege.
.73
.61
3. My destiny is closely connected to the destiny of the United States.
.89
.89
4. I see my future closely tied to the future of humankind in the United States.
.87
.88
5. My fate and future are bound with that of the American people.
.88
.84
6. One of my most important duties as an American is loyalty to the United States.
.74
.68
7. If a stranger were to meet me and mistake me for a non-American, I would correct their
mistake, and tell them that I am an American.
.57
.49
8. If I were to be born all over again, I would wish to be born an American.
—
—
Sample 1 CFA fit: 2(578) = 1198.44, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI = .93
Sample 2 CFA fit: 2(625) = 1115.46, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .94. and CFI = .94
Notes: For the five personality traits, respondents indicated how accurate each word/phrase described them.
significantly related with global identification ( = .27,
p < .01/ = .47, p < .001), but it is not related with
national identification ( = .09, p > .05/ = .01, p > .05).
Furthermore, national identification was significantly
predicted by agreeableness ( = .19, p < .01/ = .35, p <
.01), but agreeableness was not related to global identification ( = .07, p > .05/ = –.01, p > .05), in support
of H4.
Furthermore, the findings with regard to the demographic
variables produce mixed results. We modeled the demographic variables as control variables with paths to both
66 Journal of International Marketing
the identity variables and attitude toward GCCP and
LCCP; we identified some significant relationships. Age
was negatively related to global identification ( = –.17,
p < .05) and positively related to national identification
( = .22, p < .001) in the first sample. For attitude toward
the ad, age was negatively related to both GCCP
( = –.32, p < .001) and LCCP ( = –.23, p < .05) in the
first sample and negatively related to only GCCP
( = –.28, p < .001) in the second sample. Gender was
related to GCCP in both samples ( = .40, p < .001/ =
.31, p < .001) as well as to LCCP in both samples ( =
.31, p < .05/ = .35, p < .001). The positive relationship
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 67
5.65
(1.08)
.71
—
.72
4.49
(1.28)
—
–.08
.04
.02
–.12
.36***
.55***
.08
.44***
.28***
.58
4.58
(1.19)
2
.52
3.65
(1.34)
—
–.03
.18*
.30**
.11
.33***
.56***
.15*
.22***
.16*
.48
3.32
(1.18)
3
.54
4.96
(1.28)
—
.05
–.02
.08
.31***
.44***
.16
.07
.13*
.21***
.61
4.99
(1.27)
4
.42
4.59
(1.38)
—
–.02
.06
.38***
–.14
.72***
.03
.40***
.16
.21*
.29
4.85
(1.30)
5
.42
4.19
(1.41)
—
–.10
–.15
.37***
.06
.82***
.42***
.03
–.06
.07
.20
4.69
(1.23)
6
38.96
(14.77)
—
—
.18**
–.01
.03
–.01
–.24**
.26***
–.09
–.06
.12*
—
35.87
(14.49)
7
.35***
.54
(.51)
—
—
–.05
–.07
.18*
.25*
.27**
.02
.04
–.05
—
.54
(.50)
8
.10
2.60
(1.00)
—
—
.37***
–.02
.14*
–.13
–.04
.08
.04
.09
—
2.42
(.86)
9
3.00
(1.35)
—
—
.26***
.02
.31***
.14
–.05
.13*
.02
–.15*
–.07
—
2.86
(1.33)
10
.07
—
–.01
–.02
.03
–.08
.03
.13
–.08
–.03
.15*
—
3654.67
(4041.01)
11
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Notes: No AVE is reported for the demographic variables, which were single-item indicators. Population based on metro- micropolitan statistical area for 2008 is reported in the thousands. Population data were not
gathered in Sample 2. For gender, 0 = male, and 1 = female.
M (SD)
AVE Sample 2
11. Population
–.04
9. Education
10. Income
.48***
–.05
8. Gender
–.02
.33***
6. LCCP advertisements
7. Age
.30***
.40***
5. GCCP advertisements
.26***
3. Global Identification
4. National identification
.34***
.76
5.70
(1.12)
2. Openness to experience
1. Agreeableness
AVE Sample 1
M (SD)
1
Table 3. Construct Correlations, AVE, Means, and Standard Deviations (Sample 1 Above the Diagonal, Sample 2 Below the Diagonal)
Figure 2. Standardized Path Coefficients for Hypothesized Model
.27**/
.47**
Openness to
Experience
Attitude Toward
GCCP
–.08/
.30*
.09/
.01
.07/
–.01
.10/
.15
Agreeableness
.19*/
.35**
.40**/
.58**
Global
Identification
National
Identification
Attitude Toward
LCCP
.54**/
.43**
*p < .01.
**p < .001.
Notes Solid lines indicate hypothesized relationship. p-values refer to Sample 1/Sample 2.
indicates that women evaluated both GCCP and LCCP
advertisements more favorably than men.
10.66, p = .47), yet the results from the second sample
suggest a better fit for the direct effects model (2(11) =
46.57, p < .01).
Competing Models
Finally, the hypothesized model is a full mediation
model predicted by McCrae and Costa’s (1996) theory
of personality and also supported by recent studies
within the marketing domain (e.g., Mooradian, Matzler,
and Szykman 2008). Nonetheless, we empirically compare the hypothesized full mediation model with two
alternative specifications.
First, we examine a partial mediation model in which
personality, in addition to a mediating effect through
identity, may also be directly related to attitude toward
the ads, which produced mixed results across the two
samples. In the first sample, there was no significant difference between the hypothesized full mediation model
and a partial mediation model (2(10) = 10.34, p = .41),
and only one of the personality traits was significantly
related (extraversion was negatively related to GCCP).
However, in the second sample, there was indeed an
improved fit for the partial mediation model (2(10) =
45.79, p < .01).
Second, we examine a direct effects model reflecting
only direct effects of personality traits and identity on
attitude toward GCCP and LCCP without any mediation, which also produced inconclusive results. Similarly
to the partial mediation comparison, the direct effects
model was not significantly different from the hypothesized full mediation model in the first sample (2(11) =
68 Journal of International Marketing
In summary, we have compared the hypothesized full
mediation model with two alternative specifications.
The results from the first sample confirm the theorized
full mediation model, yet the results from the second
sample indicate that the effects of personality on GCCP
and LCCP may be only partially mediated by identity.
This implies that the ubiquity of personality may be
even more powerful than McCrae and Costa’s (1996)
personality theory suggests. Nonetheless, given the
inconsistent test results between samples for each of the
alternative models combined with the strong theoretical
grounding for full mediation based on McCrae and
Costa’s (1996) theory of personality, we are inclined to
accept the hypothesized model over the alternative
specifications at this time. However, it may be a fruitful
opportunity for further research to examine the type of
mediation in greater depth.
DISCUSSION
A holistic understanding of international markets can be
gained by analyzing not only the external international
marketing environment but also internal characteristics,
personality, and collective identity of the target consumers (Myers, Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Prior studies have shown that consumers’ brand preferences,
brand usage, and even brand loyalty are determined by
the extent to which brand personality and meaning is
Table 4. Standardized Results of the Hypothesis Testing
Dependent Variable
Attitude Toward GCCP
r2
(Sample 1: = .43)
(Sample 2: r2 = .58)
Attitude Toward LCCP
r2
(Sample 1: = .40)
(Sample 2: r2 = .51)
Global Identification
r2
(Sample 1: = .15)
(Sample 2: r2 = .36)
National Identification
r2
(Sample 1: = .14)
(Sample 2: r2 = .23)
Standardized Coefficients
Sample 1
Standardized Coefficients
Sample 2
.40***
.10
.58***
Age
Gender
Education
Income
Population
–.32***
.40***
–.02
.01
.12
–.28***
.31**
–.05
.07
Global identification
National identification
–.08
.54***
.30**
.43***
Age
Gender
Education
Income
Population
–.23*
.31*
–.18
.14
.01
Independent Variable
Global identification
National identification
Agreeableness
Openness
Age
Gender
Education
Income
Population
Agreeableness
Openness
Age
Gender
Education
Income
Population
.07
.27**
–.15*
.08
.02
.12
–.08
.15
–.11
.35***
–.16
–.03
–.01
.47***
.19**
.23*
.22**
–.09
.19**
.09
.35***
.01
.22***
–.10
–.01
.09
–.08
.33***
–.13
–.02
.01
Notes: A subsequent Wald test of parameter constraints offers evidence that the effect of national identification on attitude toward LCCP is significantly greater than
that of global identification on LCCP: (2(1) = 3.9, p < .05). Sample 1 Model fit: 2 (590) = 1229.48, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI =
.93. Sample 2 Model fit: 2(637) = 1182.18, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI = .93.
congruent with their self-concept (Lin 2010). The role of
collective identity and personality traits tends to be even
stronger in consumer purchase situations in which products are bought for personal consumption and product
categories are identity relevant, such as objects and
brands with social and symbolic meanings (Paharia et
al. 2011). Indeed, consumers even actively seek to create
brand meaning to fit their personality and collective
identity. For example, Chinese consumers have been
shown to imbue Western brands with Chinese national
narratives to construct their social identities (Dong and
Tian 2009). Thus, it must be recognized that understanding both personality traits and collective identity can help
marketers develop communications that reinforce the
relationship between the brand and the consumer, leading to higher brand equity and brand loyalty (Orth,
Malkewitz, and Bee 2010). This study is a step toward
understanding the link between personality and collective identity and how they are related to GCCP and
LCCP. One contribution of this research is that across
two independent samples, it empirically validates that
consumers exhibiting collective identities of global or
national identity demonstrate more favorable attitudes
toward GCCP and LCCP, respectively. We develop a
deeper understanding of people who are more responsive
to GCCP/LCCP by discovering significant relationships
between two personality traits (openness to experience
and agreeableness) and global/local identities.
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 69
In addition, this research examines GCCP and LCCP in
an advertising context. In general, global advertising
research has not sufficiently employed sound theoretical
bases (Taylor 2010). Cultural theory and especially the
cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980) have
often been the theoretical basis for analyzing crosscultural advertising issues. Recent studies provide some
guidance with respect to exploring alternative theoretical perspectives for enriching global advertising
research. For example, Griffith and Yalcinkaya (2010)
demonstrate how to apply resource-advantage theory to
global advertising, while Zou and Volz (2010) similarly
demonstrate how to apply global marketing strategy
theory to global advertising. Therefore, by employing
McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality, we offer an additional lens through which to view
aspects of global advertising and positioning.
The results of this study offer some support for McCrae
and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality,
which proposes that personality traits influence selfconcept. In the current study, agreeableness and openness to experience influenced national and global identity, respectively. With these results, we can begin to
build a profile for people who possess a global or
national identity and understand how that is related to
their attitude toward GCCP or LCCP. The evidence suggests that a person with a global identity is responsive to
GCCP and is more likely to be open to experience, while
a person with a national identity is responsive to LCCP
and is more likely to be more agreeable.
Managerial Implications
Although the GCCP versus LCCP strategies were documented and validated some time ago (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), research on identifying
consumer segments that are responsive to the different
strategies has been sparse. The current study helps fill
this void and provides guidance to marketers with
regard to characteristics of consumers who find GCCP
versus LCCP strategies appealing. More specifically,
some of the important implications of this study are
related to the premise that incorporating both personality traits and collective identity can help marketers
develop brand positioning strategies that generate positive associations with the brand. In the following paragraphs, we explore how marketers can develop targeted
advertising strategies by emphasizing brand characteristics that align with personality and collective identity of
the target consumer segment.
On the basis of the empirical findings of this study, we
recommend that marketers complement GCCP and
70 Journal of International Marketing
LCCP strategies with brand attributes that emphasize
pertinent personality traits and collective identity. Marketers targeting a consumer segment with high national
identification should use LCCP that not only associates
the brand with local cultural meaning and reinforces
national identity but also uses appeals and ad portrayals
that highlight the agreeableness trait. Thus, from a
national identity perspective, brand communications
could emphasize cultural congruity by incorporating
local cultural values, nationalistic appeals, colors, symbols, artifacts, and myths. From a personality perspective, brand communication could emphasize attributes
that are congruent with the agreeableness personality
trait. Prior studies have shown that brand personality
characteristics related to agreeableness include sincerity,
conviviality, and likeableness (see, e.g., Geuens, Weijters,
and De Wulf 2009). Furthermore, people high on agreeableness tend to prefer transformational advertisements
over informational advertisements and noncomparative
advertisements over comparative advertisements (Myers,
Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Thus, LCCP targeted to
consumers with high national identity could benefit from
integrating local cultural elements with agreeablenessrelated brand characteristics and ad appeals that tend to
be transformational and noncomparative.
Conversely, when targeting consumer segments high on
global identity, we recommend that GCCP not only
include appeals and symbols related to the global consumption culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999)
and global citizenship but also emphasize the opennessto-experience trait in brand communications. Brand
personality characteristics associated with the openness
trait include modern, contemporary, trendiness, simple,
and intellect (Geuens, Weijters, and De Wulf 2009).
People high on the openness-to-experience personality
trait tend to be more innovative, have higher brand
knowledge, be open to sex appeals, prefer transformational advertisements, and be attracted to sociable brands
(Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson 2009; Myers,
Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Thus, a more holistic
approach to developing an effective GCCP would be to
take into consideration brand attributes associated with
the openness-to-experience trait and global mindedness.
Brand narratives and biographies have already been
shown to be effective in terms of generating brand loyalty when they are congruent with consumers’ personality and collective identity. For example, Paharia et al.
(2011) find that “underdog” brand biographies tend
to resonate most when they overlap with consumers’
self-identity and also in cultures that are receptive to
underdog narratives or in which such narratives are part
of the national identity (e.g., American culture). Thus, it
is important that marketers test these brand narratives
in local markets to ensure that they resonate with target
customers’ personality and collective identity.
The relationship among personality, identity, and GCCP/
LCCP is relevant not only for product advertising but
also for employment advertisements. People are attracted
to organizations that epitomize characteristics congruent
with their personality (Stevens and Szmerekovsky 2010).
Thus, if a multinational firm wants to actively seek
applicants with high global identity, they should also use
personality descriptors associated with the openness-toexperience trait in their employment advertisements.
In summary, a better understanding of global and
national identity and consumer personality traits can
help marketers be proactive and anticipate aspirations
and self-construal of the target market. We anticipate
that the role of collective identities will become more
pervasive and important as people increasingly become
part of the globalization process and cope with forces of
nationalism and globalism.
Limitations and Conclusion
We made reasonable attempts to control for common
method bias, and the tests performed suggest that common method bias does not pose a serious threat. However, common method bias remains a possibility in attitudinal research. In addition, the samples are from a
single country, and the generalizability of these conclusions should be taken cautiously. Although McCrae and
Costa’s (1996) theory of personality suggests a full mediation model, tests of competing partial mediation models produced inconsistent results across the independent
samples. These results suggest that additional research is
warranted to confirm the actual type of mediation
involved. Further research should also focus on extending the generalizability of these findings by replicating
this study in a diverse set of cultural contexts.
Further research should also focus on contexts that
would potentially moderate the relationships uncovered
in the U.S. sample. Societal influences such as the level
of national pride may play a relevant role. For example,
Germans and Swedes typically demonstrate low levels of
national pride compared with Venezuelans and Americans (Smith and Kim 2006). Thus, global identification
may be more prevalent in societies such as Germany and
Sweden than in Venezuela and the United States.
In addition, there may be an increasing occurrence of
complex collective identities. These collective identities
can emerge from any kind of grouping or sense of
affiliation, such as sexual identity (e.g., gays and lesbians), religious identity, and occupational identity. Furthermore, consumers may share collective identities
with one or more groups. For example, immigrants and
ethnic consumer groups who share their collective identity with two or more cultures. Such groups may experience greater tension resulting from multiple cultural
identities (Arrow and Sundberg 2004). Immigrants who
have experienced recent loss of their former country
have been shown to adhere to their religious identity to
compensate for such loss, and as such their religious
identity plays an important role in driving consumption
in the host country (Hirschman, Ruvio, and Touzani
2011). Understanding the extent to which groups are
influenced by their multiple collective identities may
help marketers better serve these groups, such as the
growing Hispanic population in the United States.
We believe this study makes several important contributions to the international marketing literature. As globalization intensifies awareness of different cultures
around the world and the interdependence among them,
people necessarily develop views of the “self” in relation
to the rest of the world. Global and national identification are among these potential self-views and can serve
as a basis for segmentation. We demonstrated that consumers’ global or national identification significantly
affects their preference for global or national positioning strategies. Furthermore, this study contributes to our
understanding of how personality traits influence the
development of these identities, which has significant
implications for marketing strategy.
NOTE
1. We focus on the two personality traits most theoretically related to the variables of interest; however, we
measured all five traits and included them in the
analysis. Conscientiousness ( = –.16, p < .05) and
neuroticism ( = –.21, p < .01) were both negatively
related to global identification in the first sample but
not significant in the second sample. Extraversion
was not related to identity in either sample.
REFERENCES
Akaka, Melissa Archpru and Dana L. Alden (2010), “Global
Brand Positioning and Perceptions,” International Journal of
Advertising, 29 (1), 37–56.
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 Consumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 71
———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Consumer Attitudes
Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents
and Consequences,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23 (3), 227–39.
Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23.
Arrow, Holly and Norman Sundberg (2004), “International
Identity: Definitions, Development, and Some Implications for
Global Conflict and Peace,” in Ongoing Themes in Psychology and Culture, online ed., B.N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya,
W.J. Lonner, and Y.H. Poortinga, eds. Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, (accessed
October 25, 2011), [available at http://www.iaccp.org].
Geuens, Maggie, Bert Weijters, and Kristof de Wulf (2009), “A
New Measure of Brand Personality,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 26 (2), 97–107.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1993), “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,” American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26–34.
Griffith, David A. and Goksel Yalcinkaya (2010), “ResourceAdvantage Theory: A Foundation for New Insights into
Global Advertising Research,” International Journal of
Advertising, 29 (1), 15–36.
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture,” in Theory, Culture and Society, M. Featherstone, ed.
London: Sage Publications, 237–51.
Ashforth, Blake E. and Fred Mael (1989), “Social Identity
Theory and the Organization,” Academy of Management
Review, 14 (1), 20–39.
Hirschman, Elizabeth C., Ayalla A. Ruvio, and Mourad Touzani
(2011), “Breaking Bread with Abraham’s Children: Christians, Jews and Muslims’ Holiday Consumption in Dominant,
Minority and Diasporic Communities,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (3), 429–48.
Baumgartner, Hans (2002), “Toward a Personology of the Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 286–92.
Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications.
Bergkvist, Lars and John R. Rossiter (2007), “The Predictive
Validity of Multiple-Item Versus Single-Item Measures of the
Same Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May),
175–84.
——— and Robert R. McCrae (2004), “Personality and Culture
Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture,” CrossCultural Research, 38 (1), 52–88.
Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield
Tetreault (1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January),
71–84.
Brewer, Marilynn B. and Wendi L. Gardner (1996), “Who Is This
‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representation,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 83–93.
——— and Masaki Yuki (2007), “Culture and Social Identity,”
in Handbook of Cultural Psychology, S. Kitayama and D.
Cohen, eds. New York: The Guilford Press, 307–322.
Cannon, Hugh M. and Attila Yaprak (2002), “Will the RealWorld Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of Cosmopolitan Consumer Behavior,” Journal of International Marketing, 10 (4), 30–52.
Cole, David, Jeffrey A. Ciesla, and James H. Steiger (2007),
“The Insidious Effects of Failing to Include Design-Driven
Correlated Residuals in Latent-Variable Covariance Structure
Analysis,” Psychological Methods, 12 (4), 381–98.
De Mooij, Marieke and Geert Hofstede (2010), “The Hofstede
Model,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 85–110.
Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Yolanda Ruiz (1997), “Affective
Bicultural and Global-Human Identity Scales for MexicanAmerican Adolescents,” Psychological Reports, 80 (April),
1027–39.
Dong, Lily and Kelly Tian (2009), “The Use of Western Brands
in Asserting Chinese National Identity,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 36 (3), 504–523.
Festinger, Leon A. (1957), Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.
Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18
(February), 39–50.
72 Journal of International Marketing
Hogg, Michael A. (2003), “Social Identity,” in Handbook of
Self and Identity, M.R. Leary and J.P. Tangney, eds. New
York: The Guilford Press, 462–79.
Iversen, Nina M. and Leif E. Hem (2011), “Reciprocal Transfer
Effects for Brand Extensions of Global or Local Origin: Evidence from Norway,” International Marketing Review, 28
(4), 365–411.
Jöreskog, Karl G., Dag Sörbom, Stephen Du Toit, and Mathilda
Du Toit (2000), LISREL 8: New Statistical Features, 2d ed.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Katsikeas, Constantine, Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theodosiou
(2006), “Strategy Fit and Performance Consequences of International Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Management
Journal, 27 (9), 867–90.
Keillor, Bruce D., G. Tomas M. Hult, Robert C. Erffmeyer, and
Emin Babakus (1996), “NATID: The Development and
Application of National Identity Measure for Use in International Marketing,” Journal of International Marketing, 4
(2), 57–73.
Kitayama, Shinobu, Hazel R. Markus, Hisaya Matsumoto, and
Vinai Norasakkunkit (1997), “Individual and Collective Processes in the Construction of the Self: Self-Enhancement in the
United States and Self-Criticism in Japan,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (6), 1245–67.
Levy, Orly, Schon Beechler, Sully Taylor, and Nakiye A. Boyacigiller (2007), “What We Talk About When We Talk About
‘Global Mindset’: Managerial Cognition in Multinational
Corporations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38
(2), 231–58.
Lin, Long-Yi (2010), “The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19 (1), 4–17.
Lun, Vivian M.C. and Michael H. Bond (2006), “Achieving
Relationship Harmony in Groups and Its Consequence for
Group Performance,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9,
195–202.
McCrae, Robert R. (1987), “Creativity, Divergent Thinking,
and Openness to Experience,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52 (6), 1258–65.
——— and Paul T. Costa (1996), “Toward a New Generation of
Personality Theories: Theoretical Contexts for the Five-Factor
Model,” in The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical
Perspectives, J.S. Wiggins, ed. New York: Guilford Press.
——— and Oliver P. John (1992), “An Introduction to the FiveFactor Model and Its Applications,” Journal of Personality,
60 (2), 175–215.
Mooradian, Todd A., Kurt Matzler, and Lisa Szykman (2008),
“Empathetic Responses to Advertising: Testing a Network
of Antecedents and Consequences,” Marketing Letters, 19
(2), 79–92.
Mowen, John C. (2000), The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer
Behavior. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
Mulyanegara, Riza C., Yelena Tsarenko, and Alastair Anderson (2009), “The Big Five and Brand Personality: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences
Towards Particular Brand Personality,” Journal of Brand
Management, 16 (4), 234–47.
Myers, Susan D., Sandipan Sen, and Aliosha Alexandrov
(2010), “The Moderating Effect of Personality Traits on Attitudes Toward Advertisements: A Contingency Framework,”
Management & Marketing, 5 (3), 3–20.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2008), “Consumer
World-Mindedness, Social-Mindedness, and Store Image,”
Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3), 84–107.
——— and ——— (2011), “Consumer World-Mindedness and
Attitudes to Product Positioning in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33.
Orth, Ulrich R., Keven Malkewitz, and Colleen Bee (2010),
“Gender and Personality Drivers of Consumer Mixed Emotional Response to Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 32 (1), 69–80.
Paharia, Neeru, Anat Keinan, Jill Avery, and Juliet B. Schor
(2011), “The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 775–90.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. Mackenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879–903.
Roberts, Brent W. and Richard W. Robins (2000), “Broad Dispositions, Broad Aspirations: The Intersection of Personality
Traits and Major Life Goals,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (10), 1284–96.
Robertson, Roland (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and
Global Culture. London: Sage Publications.
Sampson, Donald L. and Howard P. Smith (1957), “A Scale to
Measure World-Minded Attitudes,” Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1), 99–106.
Sedikides, Constantine and Marilynn B. Brewer (2001), “Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self: Partners, Opponents, or Strangers?” in Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, C. Sedikides and M.B. Brewer, eds. Philadelphia:
Psychology Press, 1–4.
Sibley Chris G. and John Duckitt (2009), “Big-Five Personality,
Social Worldviews, and Ideological Attitudes: Further Tests of
a Dual Process Cognitive-Motivational Model,” Journal of
Social Psychology, 149 (5), 545–61.
Smith, Anthony D. (1991), National Identity. Reno: University
of Nevada Press.
Smith, Tom W. and Seokho Kim (2006), “National Pride in
Comparative Perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18 (1), 127–36.
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.
——— and Martijn G. de Jong (2010), “A Global Investigation
into the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Global
and Local Products,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (November),
18–40.
Stevens, Charles D. and Joseph G. Szmerekovsky (2010),
“Attraction to Employment Advertisements: Advertisement
Wording and Personality Characteristics,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 22 (1), 107–126.
Sujan, Harish (2001), “The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 396–97.
Swann, William B., Jr. (1983), “Self-Verification: Bringing Social
Reality into Harmony with the Self,” in Psychological Perspectives on The Self, J. Suls and A.G. Greenwald, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
———, Jeffrey T. Polzer, Daniel C. Seyle, and Sei Jin Ko (2004),
“Finding Value in Diversity: Verification of Personal and
Social Self-Views in Diverse Groups,” Academy of Management Review, 29 (1), 9–27.
Taylor, Charles R. (2010), “Toward Stronger Theory Development in International Advertising Research,” International
Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 9–14.
Tesch, Stephanie A. and Kathleen A. Cameron (1987), “Openness to Experience and Development of Adult Identity,” Journal of Personality, 55 (4), 615–30.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark J. Arnold, Peter Magnusson,
Srdan Zdravkovic, and Joyce Xin Zhou (2009), “Technology
Readiness and Usage: A Global-Identity Perspective,” Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 250–65.
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.
Zou, Shaoming and Yong Z. Volz (2010), “An Integrated
Theory of Global Advertising: An Application of the GMS
Theory,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1),
57–84.
Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 73