Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies Author(s): George Balabanis, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Rene

Dentiste Mueller, T.C. Melewar Reviewed work(s): Source: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (1st Qtr., 2001), pp. 157-175 Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals Stable URL: . Accessed: 08/12/2011 05:57
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of International Business Studies.




Nationalism, Patriotism
Consumer Tendencies
George Balabanis*

on Internationalism


Adamantios Diamantopoulos**

Rene Dentiste Mueller***


T.C. Melewar****
WARWICK BUSINESS SCHOOL The study investigates the impact of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism as antecedents to consumer ethnocentrism in Turkeyand the Czech Republic. Controllingfor demographics, thefindings indicate that the impact of patriotism and nationalism is not consistent across the two countries. Consumer ethnocentrism in Turkey is fueled by patriotism, and in the Czech Republic by nationalism. Internationalism does not have a significant effect on consumer ethnocentrism in either country. Managerial implications of these findings are considered and future research directions are identified.

*George Balabanis is senior lecturer in Marketing and Strategy at the City University Business School, London. His research interests include international marketing and e-cormmerce. **Adamantios Diamantopoulos is Professor of Marketing and Business Research at Loughborough University Business School. His research interests include sales forecasting, marketing research and international marketing. ***Rene Dentiste Mueller is the director of International Business at the University and College of Charleston. Her research interests include international marketing and crosscultural research. ****T C Melewar is Lecturer in Marketing and Strategic Management at Warwick Business School. His research interests include corporate identity and international marketing. The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on previous versions of this paper. The encouragement of the JIBS editor is also gratefully acknowledged.


the dawn of the twenty-first century, the world is experiencing a concurrent rise in two major forces: nationalism and globalization [The Economist, 1999]. While it may seem odd to speak about nationalism in an era of intensified global consciousness [Anderson, 1983; Roniger, 1995], nationalism is on the rise in various countries and has emerged as one of the main issues facing the world [Smith, 1992]. In trying to reconcile the paradox of nationalistic resurgence at a time of global economic and Smith technological interdependence, [1995, p. 24] argued that nation-states remain the primary object of loyalty in the modern world because a nation's "memory is central to identity." Indeed, the quest for a sovereign identity is driving much of the nationalistic sentiments today: as insecurities about globalization grow, loyalty to the nation-state increases. This helps explain why, at an economic level, the upsurge of globalization has failed to weaken economic nationalism [Nayar, 1997]. Nationalism is a concept that has been linked to both collective behaviors and governmental policies (e.g., economic protectionism and cultural isolationism) and to individual behaviors (voting behaviors, inter-racial relations, stereotyping, etc). Although both levels of nationalism have implications for international marketing, the present focus is on individual-level nationalism. In this context, the dismantling of trade barriers, deregulation of delivery services, technological advances in telecommunications and improved payment systems boost crossborder consumer purchases by reducing the problems of physical access to markets [Baker, 1995]. What remain to be seen are the socio-psychological barriers that might constrain consumers around 158


the world from purchasing the now more easily available foreign products.

To understand how individual-level nationalism translates into economic behavior, it is necessary to distinguish it from other kindred concepts such as patriotism and internationalism. Nationalism and patriotism are often used interchangeably and viewed as "negative internationalism" [Smith and Rosen, 1958]. However, "patriotism is commitment - a readiness to sacrifice for the nation - while nationalism is commitment plus exclusion of others, a readiness to sacrifice bolstered by hostility towards others" [Druckman, 1994, p. 47]. Internationalism, on the other hand, reflects positive feelings for other nations and their people [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989]. All three concepts are centered around one's general attitudes towards his/her country and those towards other countries. Whether these attitudes also enter into an individual's economic sphere and can thus explain positive or negative dispositions towards domestic and/or foreign products is an issue that is still awaiting further investigation. While a number of studies have found that consumers, in general, are favorably biased towards domestic versus imported foreign products [for recent literature reviews see Baughn and Yaprak, 1993; Peterson and Jolibert, 1995], none has examined the impact of nationalistic, patriotic and internationalistic tendencies on such a bias. For example, imagine an individual who holds highly nationalistic and patriotic rather than internationalistic views: would his/her attitudes toward foreign products be affected by this fact? The purpose of the current study is to identify the differential effects of patrioBUSINESS STUDIES JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL

GEORGE ADAMANTIOS RENE T.C. BALABAIS, DIAMANTOPOuLOS,DENTISE MUELLER, MELEWAR tism, nationalism and internationalism on consumers' ethnocentric tendencies, namely "the beliefs held by the consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products" [Shimp and Sharma, 1987, p. 280]. We examine these effects empirically in two countries (Turkey and the Czech Republic) and use Shimp and Sharma's [1987] well-established CETSCALE as our measure of ethnocentric tendencies. The intended contribution is threefold. On the theoretical front, we seek to provide insights into the extent to which political attitudes translate into economic preferences. Specifically, we seek to facilitate a better understanding of the antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism and, thus, come closer to the roots of the construct. As Sharma et al. [1995, p. 27] pointed out, "ethnocentric tendencies in consumers do not develop in isolation but rather are a part of a constellation of and demographic social-psychological influences." Although previous studies have examined some antecedents of ethnocentric tendencies of consumers [e.g., Shimp and Sharma, 1987], none has investigated the specific psychosocial variables considered here. We also seek to establish whether the antecedents investigated have the same relative impact on the ethnocentric tendencies of consumers in different countries. Such crossnational invariance would furnish further evidence on the nomological validity of the consumer ethnocentrism construct. On the methodological front, we offer additional evidence on the psychometric properties of the multi-item scales used to represent the constructs of interest (i.e., nationalism, patriotism, internaand consumer ethnocentionalism, Given that these scales were initrism).
VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

tially developed in countries other than the ones examined in the present study, our analysis offers an opportunity to examine their reliability in different country settings [e.g., Parameswaran and Yaprak, 1987]. Finally, on the managerial front, an examination of the political attitude bases of consumer ethnocentrism can help decision-makers in both domestic and foreign firms recognize whether nationalism and patriotism will affect the perceived image and, ultimately, sales of their products in countries where such political attitudes are on the rise. By using early cues for anticipating and preparing for ethnocentric bias, strategies can be developed that address the roots of such bias, with obvious applications including more effective segmentation and better communication campaigns. Since consumer ethnocentrism is a more powerful influence on consumer preferences for domestic and foreign products than demographic or marketing-mix variables [Herche, 1994], an understanding of its antecedents is vital for international marketers. ETHNOCENTRISM, PATRIOTISM, NATIONALISM AND INTERNATIONALISM The origins of the consumer ethnocentrism construct [Shimp and Sharma, 1987] come from the general construct of ethnocentrism introduced as a psychosociological concept by Sumner [1906]. Ethnocentrism focuses on a "we group" feeling where the ingroup is the center and all outgroups are judged in relation to it. The ingroup that nurtures attachment and loyalty is, in this case, one's country. Nations "... achieve personal relevance for individuals when they become sentimentally attached to the homeland (affectively involved), motivated to



help their country (goal-oriented) and gain a sense of identity and self-esteem through their national identification (ego involved)" [Druckman, 1994, p. 63]. The strength of these needs varies from country to country and from individual to individual [Terhune, 1964]. Sumner [1906] suggested a two-dimensional structure of ethnocentrism: an unfavorable attitude towards outgroups accompanied by a favorable attitude towards the ingroup. The consequences of this bias range from the maintenance and formation of stereotypes to the belief in the genetic superiority of the ingroup over the outgroup. The stereotype formation that accompanies ethnocentrism applies to both negative stereotypes for the outgroup and positive ones for the ingroup. However, formed stereotypical attitudes about outgroups (foreign countries) can be viewed as a "base rate" on the top of which individuals can alter their attitudes towards outgroups with differentiating characteristics [Judd and Park, 1993]. In particular, information that differentiates a foreign country from other foreign countries can dilute or reinforce existing stereotypical attitudes towards that country. An important question here is whether one's negative feelings towards outgroups rise automatically as a consequence of one's attachment and positive feelings towards his/her ingroup. Adorno et al. [1950] noted that there is a difference between "healthy patriotism" (love of country) which is not related with bias against outgroups and "ethnocentric patriotism" (or pseudopatriotism) which is accompanied by such bias. Ethnocentric patriotism is one's "blind attachment to certain national cultural values, uncritical conformity with the prevailing group ways, and rejection of other nations as

outgroups" [Adorno et al. 1950, p. 107]. However, it has been argued that it is not necessary for the one to follow the other because "there is no reason to suppose that personality traits associated with love of country are the same as those connected to hostility towards foreign countries" [Doob, 1964, p. 128]. Indeed, Heaven et al. [1989, p. 182] showed that "one might be superpatriot and still not dislike members of the out-group". This difference between healthy patriotism and pseudopatriotism was empirically clarified by Kosterman and Feshbach [1989]. They factor-analyzed data on 120 items capturing attitudes towards one's own country and towards other countries, and identified three meaningful factors: patriotism, nationalism and internationalism. Patriotism refers to strong feelings of attachment and loyalty to one's own country without the corresponding hostility towards other nations. Nationalism (which is similar to Adorno et al.'s [1950] ethnocentric patriotism) encompasses views that one's country is superior and should be dominant (and thus implies a denigration of other nations). Finally, internationalism emerged as a distinct dimension and not simply as the opposite end of nationalism, as earlier research had suggested [Smith and Rosen, 1958]. Specifically, internationalism focuses on one's concern about other nations' welfare and reflects an empathy for the people of other nations. In summary, favorable attitudes towards one's country are not necessarily associated with negative ones towards other countries. Consequently, it appears plausible that a favorable bias towards domestic products may not necessarily imply a negative one for imported products.



The construct of consumer ethnocentrism was developed as an economic form of ethnocentrism and encompasses issues such as one's fear of economically harming his/her beloved country by buying foreign products, the morality of buying imported products, and a personal prejudice against imports [Sharma et al., 1995]. Shimp and Sharma [1987] developed a multi-item scale to capture consumer ethnocentric tendencies (the CETSCALE) and showed that consumer ethnocentrism explains why consumers prefer domestic over imported products (even when the latter are cheaper and their quality is evidently better). Herche [1992] showed that consumer ethnocentrism can predict (with varying precision across product-categories) consumers' preferences to buy or own domestic as opposed to foreign products. Importantly, he demonstrated that ethnocentric tendencies are better predictors of import purchase behavior than demographic and marketing mix variables [Herche, 1992, 1994]. However, consumer ethnocentrism's predictive ability of buying intentions varies from country to country; for example, Good and Huddleston [1995] found it to be important for Poles' but not for Russians' intentions to buy foreign products.1 Regarding the antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism, several studies have found that males, better-educated consumers and those with higher incomes tend to be less ethnocentric [Shimp, 1984; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma et al., 1995]. The rationale provided for the observed relationships is that females, older, and less educated people are more conservative and more patriotic; moreover, as one's income increases, the more likely one is to travel
VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

and try more products, and thus, be more open to imported products [Sharma et al., 1995; Han, 1988; Wall and Heslop, 1986]. Although the impact of demographics is not the principal focus of this study, we include demographics in the analysis to statistically isolate the impact of the main variables of interest (i.e., patriotism, nationalism and internationalism). Thus, gender, age, education and income are used as control variables [e.g., van de Vijver and Leung, 1997]. In addition to examining the role of demographics in influencing consumer a few studies have ethnocentrism, looked into the impact of other potential antecedents. Thus, Shimp and Sharma [1987] found a strong positive correlation between: (1) patriotism, politicoeconomic conservatism, dogmatism, and (2) consumer ethnocentrism. Sharma et al. [1995] found that collectivism, cultural openness and patriotism/conservatism (a hybrid construct) were all significantly correlated with the CETSCALE. However, in both studies, a purified version of Adorno et al.'s [1950] ethnocentric patriotism (or "pseudopatriotism") scale was used - as already noted, this scale is closer to what Kosterman and Feshbach [1989] described as "nationalism". Moreover, in the Sharma et al.'s [1995] study, Adorno et al.'s [1950] pseudopatriotism scale was combined with Ray's [1983] conservatism scale (a scale typified by such statements as "erotic and obscene literature should be prohibited from public sale"!). The resulting conceptual mingling makes it difficult to isolate the effect of (ethnocentric) patriotism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies. In light of the above, there is considerable scope in studying how one's attitudes towards his/her own country and other countries relates to consumer eth-



nocentric tendencies. We explore this theme further in the next section, where specific hypotheses are put forward linking nationalism, patriotism and internationalism to consumer ethnocentrism. STUDY HYPOTHESIS Nationalism. Druckman [1994] showed that nationalists are more competitive, more militaristic, more aggressive and more prejudiced towards other countries and ethnic groups. In addition, nationalists tend to maintain more stereotypical images of outgroups and precipitate exaggerated national self-images that can restrain inter-state cooperation, lead to isolationism, trade protectionism, humanrights abuses of minorities, ethnic violence, terrorism, and, ultimately, war [Sidanius et al., 1997]. Nationalism, and, to a lesser extent, patriotism, are both associated with support for conservative and right-wing political parties, whereas internationalism is associated with support for liberal parties [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989]. Against this backdrop, it is plausible to anticipate that nationalists' obsession with national dominance and, subsequently, economic dominance [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989] is likely to lead them to buy domestic products (in order to strengthen local industry) and/or boycott buying imported products (to avert possible economic dominance by a foreign country). Given that foreign nations are often perceived as threats by nationalists [Jackson, 1993], the latter are likely to resort to negative stereotyping and/or minimization of the opportunities available to the threatening country [Mihalyi, 1984]. Baughn and Yaprak [1996] supported this view by showing a positive correlation between general nationalism and economic nationalism. Economic nationalism is a 162

broader concept that encompasses consumer ethnocentrism together with attitudes towards trade protection, restriction of foreign investment, restriction on the immigration of workers, and restriction of foreign firms and intellectual property [Baughn and Yaprak, 1996]. Based on these arguments, it is expected that:

Hypothesis 1: The more nationalistic the individual, the higher his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be.
Patriotism. To date, no empirical study has explicitly examined the relationship between healthy patriotism (i.e., love of country) and consumer ethnocentrism. Feshbach [1990] suggested that, unlike nationalists, patriots tend to take a more cooperative approach to the world. Druckman [1994] also suggested that patriotic attitudes develop early in the socialization process and as a result are very persistent, with the deep-rooted needs served by these attitudes (i.e., security, feelings of belonging, self-enhancement) making them very resistant to change. Patriots, in general, exhibit a willingness to sacrifice for their country and subordinate their personal interests to national interests [Feshbach, 1990]. While patriotism is also related to some of the behaviors associated with nationalistic attitudes (e.g., support for rightwing and conservative parties), patriots are more moderate and do not relapse in the extremities of nationalists. In relation to consumption, patriots are more likely to see it as part of their duty to their country to protect its economy and support domestic producers [Han, 1988]. They are also likely to try and prevent an invasion of foreign products if the latter is perceived to be harmful to their country's economy. Druckman [1994] suggested that emotional atBUSINESS STUDIES JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL


tachment to one's country might lead to a reduced desire to seek information about other countries and, as a consequence, their products. In this case, the assessment of other nations and their products is not based on unbiased processing of the information available but on stereotypical images of these nations and products; hence, patriots may be unconsciously biased against products from other nations. Thus it is hypothesized that: Hypothesis 2: The more patriotic the individual, the higher his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be. Internationalism. Previous research has shown that internationalism is related to the opposite behaviors of those related to patriotism and nationalism: for example, it has been found that internationalists are more likely to support liberal parties [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989]. However, there is little research on the relationship between internationalism and consumer ethnocentric tendencies. Crawford and Lamb [1982] found that "worldmindedness" positively affected professional buyers' willingness to buy foreign products. Worldmindedness was included in the constituent scales in Kostermanand Feshbach's [1989] developmental work and is conceptually similar to internationalism. Moreover, Sharma et al. [1995] found that the kindred concept of "cultural openness" was negatively related to consumer ethnocentric tendencies. Cultural openness implies a passive exposure and acceptance or no rejection of foreign culture and people [Sharmaet al., 1995]. In contrast, internationalism takes a more active stance focusing on "international sharing and welfare, and reflects an empathy for the peoples of other countries" [Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989, p.
VOL. 32, NO. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

271].2 Internationalists are more likely to find morally acceptable to buy imported products as a means of supporting international welfare and the people of other nations. This is consistent with the findings of Baughn and Yaprak [1996] who found a negative correlation between internationalism and economic nationalism. Thus, it is anticipated that: Hypothesis 3: The more internationalist the individual, the lower his/her consumer ethnocentric tendencies will be. The research hypotheses, the control (demographic) variables mentioned earlier and the direction of the postulated relationships are summarized in Figure 1. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Empirical Setting
The formulated hypotheses were tested on two samples of consumers, located in Turkey and the Czech Republic. These countries provide an almost ideal empirical setting to study the constructs of interest for several reasons. First, both Turkey and the Czech Republic are economically and culturally different from the countries used in previous empirical studies [Shimp and Sharma, 1987; Herche, 1992, 1994; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma, Shimp and Shin, 1995] and can thus provide a different perspective on the interplay between consumer ethnocentrism and the set of antecedent constructs under study here (nationalism, patriotism and internationalism). Second, in both countries, the level of nationalistic feelings is quite significant, albeit for different reasons. Turkey has long been involved in an ethnic conflict with its Kurdish minority [Economist, 163



June 8, 1996]. As Calhoun [1993] observed, nationalism is more likely to flourish in countries with ethnic minorities and to be exacerbated in ethnicconflict situations. As far as the Czech Republic is concerned, the post-Cold War rise of suppressed nationalism was ultimately manifested in its divorce from Slovakia in 1993. Its history of domination by foreign powers since 1938 (Nazi occupation followed by 45 years of Soviet control) seems to have made the Czechs wary of economic or political influence of foreigners. Indeed, the xenophobic Republican Party won 8% of the vote in the last election, based on an anti-foreign, anti-gypsy campaign [Financial Times, December 6, 1996]. Third, both Turkey and the Czech Republic are large importers of foreign products. More specifically, with imports that accounted for 20.3% of its GDP in 1996, the trade deficit of Turkey reached $19 billion [Financial Times, 164

May 26, 1997]. The Czech Republic faced a trade deficit of about 7% of its GDP (or $4 billion) in 1996, with 56.4% of its imports originating from the EU. Indeed, faced with imports growing at a rate of 15.5% in 1996 [Financial Times, December 6, 1996], the Czech government took measures aimed at restricting the influx of foreign goods (e.g., it launched a buy "Czech Made" campaign). Fourth, despite the above similarities, there are substantial demographic and economic differences between the two countries. Turkey is an Islamic capitalist country [Koker, 1995] with a population of 62.6 million and a per capita income of $2,291 in 1996. The Czech Republic is a much smaller Christian country with a population of 10.3 million learning to cope with transition to a new economic system following its recent divorce from Slovakia in 1993; moreover, its per capita income is substantially higher than that of Turkey ($4,535 in 1996).


Finally, Turkey and the Czech Republic belong to two different cultural clusters distant from each other. In particular, Turks seem to place greatervalue on achieved status and loyal involvement, whereas Czechs emphasize ascribed status and utilitarian involvement [Smith et
al., 1996].3

sound. All scale items were measured on

a 5-point Likert format (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree).

Data Collection
Samples of 303 Turkish and 480 Czech consumers, respectively, were surveyed during 1996; the former sample was drawn from Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, whereas the Czech sample was drawn from Prague. Data were collected by local collaboratorsusing the mall-intercept survey technique [Bush and Hair, 1985] on the main streets and/or squares of the respective cities' main shopping districts. While by no means perfect, the mall-intercept approach can result in "a sample, which, while not strictly representative, may nonetheless be relatively free of any systematic bias" [Douglasand
Craig, 1983, p. 212].

Consumer ethnocentric tendencies. The reduced 10-item version of the CETSCALE proposed by Shimp and Sharma [1987] was used. The scale has been validated in the United States [Shimp and Sharma, 1987], Germany, France and Japan [Netemeyer et al., 1991]; and it has been successfully used in other countries such as Korea[Sharma
et al., 1995], Canada [Hersche, 1994],

and Poland and Russia [Good and Huddleston, 1995].

The questionnaires used were translated into Turkish and Czech by native speakers of the respective languages and back-translated into English by experts of the English language [Brislin, 1970]. Translated questionnaires were subsequently pretested on samples of 10 Turkish and 10 Czech consumers, using the debriefing approach; subsequently, items that seemed problematic were reworded and refined [Malhotra,1991]. In the survey-implementation stage, no problems with the administration of the instrument were observed in either country.

The measures for the constructs of interest were drawn from the literatureand have been shown to be psychometrically
VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

Patriotism, Nationalism and Internationalism. These were measured through the scales developed by Kosterman and Feshbach [1989]. Patriotism was measured on a twelve-item scale which included items such as "I am proud to be a Turk/Czech." Nationalism's seven-item scale included items such as "Generally, the more influence Turkey/Czech Republic has on other nations, the better off they are."4 Finally, internationalism was measured on a nine item-scale with statements such as: "If necessary we ought to be willing to lower our standard of living to cooperate with other countries in getting an equal standard for every person in the world". Table 1 provides descriptive information for the constructs of interest. The consumer ethnocentrism and patriotism scales are well above the commonly accepted reliability threshold (.70) in both samples [Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994]. Interestingly, although the reliability of the same scale can vary considerably from one country to another [e.g., Parameswaranand Yaprak,1987], the reliabilities of all scales in this study are very consistent across the two samples; thus, any cross-country differences in the relationships between the constructs 165



Turkey Mean Consumer Ethnocentrism' (10 items) Patriotism2(12 items) Nationalism3 (6 items) Internationalism4 (9 items) Std Dev Alpha

Czech Republic Mean Std Dev Alpha

Differences* 8 (p-value)

25.920 49.658 18.576 30.621

8.411 7.610 3.962 5.221

0.901 0.850 0.639 0.629

24.024 43.063 18.479 28.837

7.885 7.083 3.647 4.462

0.906 0.816 0.656 0.628

1.266 (.002) 6.595 (.000) 0.097 (.733) 1.784 (.000)

* two-sample t-test, 8 is the difference between the two samples' means scores on this scale range from 5 to 50 2 scores on this scale range from 12 to 60 3 scores on this scale range from 6 to 30 4 scores on this scale range from 9 to 45

of interest cannot be attributed to differential reliabilities. Table 1 also shows that, on average, Turkish consumers are more ethnocentric, patriotic and internationalist than Czech consumers. However, these univariate comparisons ignore differences in the demographic composition of the two samples; the latter also differ with respect to education, age and income, with the Turkish sample being younger, better educated and earning more. While demographic differences may be partly responsible for the differences in Table 1, the purpose of this study is not to contrast the two countries in terms of patriotism, nationalism or internationalism, but to assess the relationship between these variables and consumer ethnocentrism. Given that demographics are explicitly included as control variables in the subsequent analysis, our procedures "take into consideration the 166

impact of sampling characteristics such as income and age on survey results" [Douglas and Craig, 1983, p. 249]. The specific demographic variables included were chosen on the basis that they had been found to be linked to consumer ethnocentrism in previous studies [Shimp, 1984; Good and Huddleston, 1995; Sharma et al., 1995; Han, 1988]. ANALYSIS A hierarchical regression procedure was employed to test the hypotheses of interest in a multivariate framework. Two separate regressions were formed (one for each sample), with the CETSCALE as the dependent variable. Predictor variables were entered in two blocks, with demographics entered first to provide a baseline model [Herche, 1994]. Having noted the proportion of variance explained (R2), the scales for the three constructs of interest (i.e., paBUSINESS STUDIES JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL


HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION RESULTS (DEPENDENT VARIABLE: CETSCALE) Turkey Step 1 2 Predictor Set R2 AR2 R2 0.018** 0.122** 0.104** Sig T 0.002 0.032 0.000 0.995 0.003 0.164 0.682 0.000 b -0.059 0.001 0.013 -0.997 0.041 0.683 -0.068 10.822 Beta -0.003 0.008 0.125 -0.047 0.032 0.305 -0.029 .998 Sig T 0.949 0.877 0.012 0.338 0.529 0.000 0.562 0.001 Czech Republic AR2

0.086** Demographics Patriotism, Nationalism, Internationalism 0.150** 0.064** b -3.035 0.195 -0.068 -0.459 0.146 0.113 -0.092 25.273 Beta -0.180 0.123 -0.218 0.000 0.194 0.091 -0.023 .980

Independent Variable Gender (1 = male) Age Income (?000s) University Education (1 = yes) Patriotism Nationalism Internationalism Constant Power at a = 0.0001

Maximum Condition Index

* p - 0.05
** p ' 0.01



triotism, nationalism and internationalism) were added as a second block. Subsequently, the change in variance explained (AR2) was used to determine the combined impact of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism on consumer ethnocentrism over and above that accounted by the demographic variables incorporated in our model. Support for each individual hypothesis was then determined through an inspection of signs and significance of regression weights. Table 2 summarizes the regression results. In both samples, the addition of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism brings about a significant change in the proportion of the variance explained, This confirms that these characteristics do collectively have an impact on consumer ethnocentrism, even when the inVOL. 32, No. 1, FIRST QUARTER, 2001

fluence of demographic variables is controlled for. However, although the R2s of the final regression models in both countries are approximately equal,5 in the Turkish sample, the incremental contribution (AR2) of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism is substantially less than in the Czech sample. This is because the explanatory power of the control variables is considerably higher in the Turkish sample; indeed, less than 2% of the variance in the CETSCALE is collectively explained by demographics in the Czech sample as compared with almost 9% in the Turkish sample. Prior to interpreting the regression coefficients in Table 2, a formal test was undertaken to determine (1) whether exactly the same regression model holds in both countries (implying that the unstandardised population regression coef167


ficients and intercepts are the same and any observed differences reflect sampling error); (2) whether, while not equal, the regressions are parallel (i.e., are characterized by equality of regression coefficients but with different intercepts); or (3) whether separate regressions are appropriate for each country group (i.e., neither the coefficients nor the intercepts coincide in the respective populations). Evidence in favor of (1) or (2) would be indicative of cross-cultural consistency between the two countries, whereas evidence in support of (3) would suggest that the pattern of relationships among the constructs of interest is country-specific. To conduct the above tests, multigroup LISREL analysis [Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993] was used. The test for equality of regressions produced a highly significant result (X2(8)= 45.272, p<0.001) indicating that the hypothesis of equal regressions must be rejected. The test for parallelism also produced a significant result (X2(7)= 39.252, p<0.001) suggesting that the less restrictive hypothesis of parallel regressions is not tenable either. It must, therefore, be concluded that the manner in which demographic characteristics and the patriotism, nationalism and internationalism measures are related to consumer ethnocentrism is fundamentally different in the two countries. Regarding demographic characteristics, in the Turkish sample, gender, age and income show significant effects consistent with those observed in previous studies (with females, older and lower income consumers being more ethnocentric). In the Czech sample, only income has a significant influence; moreover, this influence is contrary to expectations (implying that the greater one's income, the more ethnocentric he/she is likely to 168

be). Education is not a significant predictor in either sample. A picture of similar divergence exists with regards to the three predictor constructs of interest. Thus hypothesis Hi, positing a positive link between patriotism and consumer ethnocentrism finds support in the Turkish sample, but not in the Czech sample. In contrast, hypothesis H2, postulating a positive relationship between nationalism and consumer ethnocentrism is supported in the Czech sample, but fails to reach significance in the Turkish sample. The only consistent result concerns the lack of influence of internationalism in both samples (hence providing no support for hypothesis H3). These results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between healthy patriotism and pseudo-patriotism (nationalism) as argued by Kosterman and Feshbach [1989]: while both are associated with consumer ethnocentrism, their role in different national settings is not invariant. More subtle differences in the findings can be identified by focusing on the relative importance of the predictor variables within each sample. Thus, in the Turkish sample, income has the strongest influence on consumer ethnocentrism, followed respectively by patriotism, gender and age. In contrast, the prime linkage to consumer ethnocentrism in the Czech sample is nationalism, with the only other variable displaying a significant (but much weaker) relationship being income. In summary, our analysis has established that (1) the correlates of consumer ethnocentrism are significantly different in the two countries; (2) demographics are better predictors of consumer ethnocentrism in the Turkish than in the Czech sample; (3) the hypothesized associations with patriotism and nationalBUSINESS STUDIES JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL


find empirical support but only in country each; and (4) internationaldoes not appear to have an impact consumer ethnocentrism in either sample. A discussion of the results and their implications follows. ism one ism on DISCUSSION The results demonstrate that neither patriotism nor nationalism has a consistent influence on consumer ethnocentrism since their effects vary from country to country. In some countries, consumers are ethnocentric from pure love and attachment to their country (patriotism), while in other countries, they are out of feelings of economic superiority and national dominance (nationalism). Based on Schooler's [1996] suggestions, such differences may be attributed to historically determined differences between the countries concerned as well as in differences in their institutions that result in different socially-constructed views of reality. In any case, our findings are consistent with the view that "theoretical relationships generally are not true under all circumstances but depend on the specifics of the situation" [Sharma et al., 1995, p. 34]. In Turkey, patriotism seems to be the main motive for consumer ethnocentrism. According to Smith et al. [1996], Turkey is a collectivist country with emphasis on group loyalty. Healthy patriotism is, by definition, an expression of loyalty to one's country and its people as well as a strong motivator on economic behavior. Consequently, Turkish feelings of dominance and superiority (nationalism) do not seem to be fulfilled by taking pride on their national products at the expense of foreign products; hence, foreign products are not seen as opposing or repudiating their nationalistic feelings.
VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

In contrast, the Czech Republic is an individualistic country with a strong emphasis on utilitarian considerations and weak emphasis on loyalty considerations [Smith et al., 1996]. Here, feelings of superiority and dominance seem to find a more fertile ground to translate into consumer ethnocentrism. This finding is consistent with Baughn and Yaprak's [1996] study who found a strong correlation between general nationalism and economic nationalism. In both samples, internationalism was found not to affect consumer ethnocentrism. This does not diminish the importance of the concept. Turkey and the Czech Republic are both in the process of resolving internal economic development problems and, therefore, currently inward-looking; given their circumstances, internationalism might find expression in venues other than economic ones (as reflected in positive support for foreign products). In addition, as internationalism emphasizes empathy with the welfare of other nations, it is conceivable that such feelings will be directed towards nations in need and/or Third World countries rather than toward developed countries. Most of the imported products in Turkey and Czech Republic originate from developed countries [Financial Times 1996, 1997], and thus may fail to gain the sympathy of internationalist consumers. Managerial implications can also be drawn from the findings. The results should prompt optimism for international marketers since patriotism and nationalism do not automatically translate into bias for foreign products in all countries. While marketers should not be deterred by the level of consumers' patriotic and nationalistic feelings when they enter foreign markets, they should make sure that their strategy or products do 169


not facilitate the switching of patriotism or nationalism into consumer ethnocentrism. They should convey to domestic consumers that the consumption of their products is not economically harmful for their beloved country and does not antagonize their nationalistic sentiments. If patriotism is the underlying motivation for bias against foreign products, then marketers may have to change the symbols of their products to national symbols and demonstrate to consumers that the product is not a threat to the country's economy (e.g., through co-production, etc.). In addition, patriotism develops early in one's socialization and is more difficult to change as compared to nationalism [Druckman, 1994]. Thus, patriotically-motivated bias against foreign products is likely to be more persistent than nationalistically-motivated bias. international marketers should Therefore, take a longer term view on ethnocentric consumers motivated by patrioticallybased bias. If nationalism underlies the bias against foreign products, then the exhibited patterns of consumer ethnocentrism will be more volatile and might necessitate continuous strategy adjustments. Specifically, marketers should convey to consumers that they recognize their group's superiority and that foreign products do not impose any significant threat to their country's superiority or dominance. They might also indirectly try to deflect these feelings away from products towards other symbols of group superiority and dominance. Possibly, a de-emphasis of a foreign product's national identity or national symbols (e.g., flags) will be instrumental in this respect. FUTURERESEARCH The small proportion of consumer ethnocentrism variance accounted for by 170

patriotism, nationalism and internationalism means that their influence as antecedent variables on ethnocentric tendencies is only moderate (at least for the countries examined). One possible explanation for this is that the ability of patriotism, nationalism and internationalism to generate a predisposition towards consumer ethnocentrism is only activated when other factors are present as well. Such factors can be internal (psychological attributes) or external to an individual (circumstances, happenings, etc.). Two issues are important here and could be usefully explored in future research. First, the concept of causal attribution could help explain how individuals link the consumption of foreign products with economically harming their country [Hewstone and Ward, 1985]. The process used to identify causes for economic misfortunes in one's country may force individuals to focus on certain cues (e.g., consumption of foreign products, immigration, etc.) as legitimate causes [White, 1989] or it might be affected by what someone views as "abnormal conditions" (e.g., a temporary steep increase in unemployment) [Hinton and Slugoski, 1986]. Indeed, perceptions of "economic threat" from foreign competition have been found to be strongly and positively linked with economic nationalism and Yaprak, 1996]. Thus, buy[Baughn ing foreign products (causal cue) might not necessarily be causally linked with harm to country under certain conditions (e.g., low unemployment) but it may become a focal point for causal attribution when conditions change (e.g., a rise in unemployment and the trade deficit). Second, the consumers' level of moral maturity [Kohlberg, 1984] could be important. One of the main tenets of conBUSINESS STUDIES JOURNALOF INTERNATIONAL


sumer ethnocentrism refers to whether or not it is morally acceptable to consume foreign products [Sharma et al., 1995]. Understanding how different consumers define their moral obligations to their country and whether these obligations include preferential consumption of domestic products should throw light on how ethnocentric judgments are formed. Four other issues deserve attention in future research. First, the stability of the present findings needs to be established by replicating the study in different country settings (e.g., advanced vs. developing). Second, the extent to which patriotism, nationalism and internationalism also have a direct effect (i.e., not through consumer ethnocentrism) on purchasing behavior is open to question; to date, the behavioral manifestations of these constructs on the economic front have not been empirically examined. Third, consumer biases are likely not to be equally distributed across all foreign products, since consumers' attitudes toward foreign countries lie in continuum ranging from positive to that of hostility [Klein et al., 1998]. However, as the Economist's [1991] map of "loved" and "hated" countries shows, such attitudes are changeable over time. For example, in their lifetime, the British have "liked Germany,hated Germanyand liked Germany again, in that order" [Economist,
1991, p. 14]. Moreover, many individu-

try. Since the aim of this study was to examine general, rather than countryspecific bias, future research could usefully examine how nationalism, patriotism and internationalism affect countryspecific evaluations of foreign products. For example, Rawwas et al., [1996] have found that nationalism and worldmindedness affect the extent to which consumers use country-of-origin cues in their product evaluations (e.g. nationalist consumers tended to use more stereotypical information processing). Differential information about a specific country could either alleviate or aggravatethe impact of political orientation on attitudes towards products from that country. This would appear to be a promising avenue for future research. Finally, the influence of internationalism needs to be revisited since the inability to detect a significant impact may well be a result of the specific country samples examined rather than a general inability of the construct to function as a predictor of consumer ethnocentric tendencies. This is all the more important given the relatively low reliability of the internationalism scale, which may have further attenuated any relationships that may exist between it and the other constructs under study here.

1. According to Good and Huddleston
[1995], differences in the stage of the

als hold less strong views, or no view at all about the majority of countries because they do not really know exactly where they are [Economist, 1991]. Within this context of temporal instability in attitudes and the absence of any feelings for many countries, "general"attitudes towards foreign countries and people seem to be more enduring than those directed towards a specific counVOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

transition process and the quality of domestic products were thought to be the main reason for the Russians' lack of bias against imported goods. 2. Another seemingly similar construct is "cosmopolitanism" [Cannon et al., 1994] which comprises an individual's propensity and ability to seek and use a broader range of information sources and ideas to make decisions. Al171


though, conceptually close to internadoes not tionalism, cosmopolitanism necessarily register an individual's attitudes towards other countries by themselves but his/her attitudes towards the information and ideas coming from these countries. 3. Achieved status is described by ability, skills, effort, and competition which can allow social mobility. Ascribed status is determined mainly by a person's position in society, social rank, membership to a caste, etc. Loyal and utilitarian involvement orientations reflect the nature of somebody's interest in association with membership or commitment to a group or organization. The basic of loyal involvement orientation is fidelity, emotional attachment and devotion to the group and its norms. In contrast, utilitarian involvement is more based on the calculation of potential gains and promotion of personal interest. 4. One item from the original scale had to be excluded as it was neither applicable nor adaptable to the countries studied (the item concerned made reference to the "US foreign aid program", but a similar type of program was not available in either Turkey or the Czech Republic). A second item was also excluded as it severely reduced the reliability of the scale in both samples. 5. Indeed, the application of Olkin and Finn [1995] procedure for testing differences in R2s, yielded a non-significant result (z=0.572, p=0.569).

Adorno, Theodor W.; Else, FrankelBrunswik; Daniel J. Levinson; Nevitt R. Sanford; Betty Aron; Maria Hertz Levinson & William Morrow 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper & Row. 172

Anderson, Benedict R. O'G. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Baker, T.H. 1995. The Consumer in the Global Market. OECD Observer, FebMarch, 192: 13-16. Baughn, C. Christopher & Attila Yaprak. 1993. Mapping Country-of-Origin Research: Recent Developments and Emerging Avenues. In N. Papadopoulos & L. Heslop (editors), Productcountrylmages: Impact and Role in International Marketing (pp 89-115). New York: Haworth Press. & Attila Yaprak. 1996. Economic Nationalism: Conceptual and Empirical Development. Political Psychology, 17(4): 759-78. Brislin, Richard W. 1970. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216. Bush Alan J. & Joseph F. Jr. Hair 1985. An Assessment of the Mall Intercept as a Data Collection Method. Journal of Marketing Research, May, 22: 158-67. Calhoun, Craig 1993. Nationalism & Ethnicity. Annual Review of Sociology, 19: 211-39. Cannon, M. Hugh; Sung-Joon Yoon; Laura McGowan & Attila Yaprak 1994. In Search of the Global Consumer. Annual Meeting of the Academy of International Business. Crawford John C. & Charles W. Jr Lamb 1982. Effect of Worldmindedness Among Professional Buyers Upon their Willingness to Buy Foreign Products. Psychological Reports. 50: 85962. Doob, Leonard William 1964. Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations. New Haven: Yale University Press.


Douglas, Susan P. & Samuel C. Craig. 1983. International Marketing Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Druckman, Daniel 1994. Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective. International Studies Quarterly, 38(51): 4368. Economist, 1991. Friends and Enemies: A Guide to Keeping Up. The Economist, March 16, 318(7698): 14-15. 1996. The Elusive Golden Apple Turkey's West is Eagerly Reaching out for the Glittering Prizes of a Modern Industrial Society, but its Eastern Part is Holding it Back. Survey of Turkey by R. Dowden, The Economist, June 8, 339(7969):1-2. 1999. Where Now for Europe's Right? The Economist, 350(8103): 14. Feshbach, Seynour 1990. Psychology, Human Violence and the Search for Peace: Issues in Science and Social Values. Journal of Social Issues, 46: 183-98. Financial Times, 1996. Survey - Czech Republic: Message from the People. December 6, p. 3. 1997. Survey - Turkey - EU Customs Union: The Economy. May 26, p. 3. Good, Linda K. & Patricia Huddleston. 1995. Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian Consumers: Are Feelings and Intentions Related?, International Marketing Review, 12(5): 35-48. Han C. Min 1988. The Role of Consumer Patriotism in the Choice of Domestic Versus Foreign Products. Journal of Advertising Research (2): 25-32. Heaven, Patrick C. L., Devi Rajab & John J. Ray 1989. Patriotism, Racism, and the Disutility of the Ethnocentrism Concept. Journal of Social Psychology, 125(2): 181-85.
VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001

Herche, Joel 1992. A Note on the Predictive Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(3): 261-64. 1994. Ethnocentric Tendencies, Marketing Strategy and Import Purchase Behavior. International Marketing Review, 11(3): 4-16. Hewstone, Miles & Colleen Ward 1985. Ethnocentrism and Causal Attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48: 614-23. Hilton, Denis J. & Ben R. Slugoski 1986. Knowledge-Based Causal Attribution: The Abnormal Conditions Focus Model. Psychological Review, 93: 7588. Jackson, Jay W. 1993. Realistic Group Conflict Theory: A Review and Evaluation of the Theoretical and Empirical Literature. The Psychological Record. 43:395-414. Joreskog, Karl G. & Dag Sorbom. 1983. LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Judd, Charles M. & Bernadette Park 1993. Definition and Assessment of Accuracy in Social Stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100: 109-28. Klein, Jill Gabrielle; Richard Ettenson & Marlene D Morris. 1998. The Animosof Foreign Product ity Model Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People's Republic Of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1): 89-101. Kohlberg, Lawrence 1984. Essays in Moral Development: Vol. 2 - The Psychology of Moral Development. New York: Harper and Row. Koker L. 1995. Local-Politics and Democracy in Turkey: An Appraisal. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 540: 51-62. Kosterman, Rick & Seymour Feshbach


1989. Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes. Political Psychology, 10(2): 257-74. Malhotra, Naresh K. 1991. Administration of Questionnaires for Collecting Quantitative Data in International Marketing Research. Journal of Global Marketing, 4(2): 63-92. Mihalyi, Louis J. 1984. Ethnocentrism Vs. Nationalism: Origin and Fundamental Aspects of a Major Problem for the Future. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 12(1): 95-113. Nayar, B.R. 1997. Globalisation, Nationalism and Economic Policy Reform. and Political Economic Weekly, 32(30): 93-104. Netemeyer, Richard G.; Srinivas Durvasula & Donald R. Lichtenstein 1991. A Cross-National Assessment of the Reliability And Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research. 28(3): 320-7. Nunnally, Jum C. & Ira H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw Hill Inc. Olkin, Ingram & Jeremy D Finn. 1995. Correlations Redux. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1):155-64. Papadopoulos, Nicolas & Luise A. Heslop. 1993. Product Country Images: Impact and their Role in International Marketing. Haworth Press. Parameswaran, Ravi & Attila Yaprak. 1987. A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer Research Measures. Journal of International Business Studies, 3550. Peterson, Robert A.; & Alain J. P. Jolibert, 1995. A Meta-Analysis of Country-ofOrigin Effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(4):883-900. Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A., K.N. Rajendra & Gerhard A. Wuehrer. 1996. The Influence of Worldmindedness and Nationalism on Consumer Evaluation

of Domestic and Foreign Products. International Marketing Review, 13(2): 20-39. Ray, John J. 1983. A Scale to Measure Conservatism of American Public Opinion. Journal of Social Psychology, 119: 293-4. Roniger, Luis. 1995. Public Life and Globalization as Cultural Vision. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 32(3): 259-86. Schooler Carmi 1996. Cultural and Social-Structural Explanations of CrossNational Psychological Differences. Annual Review of Sociology, 22: 22349. Sharma, Subash; Terence A. Shimp & Shin 1995. Consumer Jeongshin Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and Moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(1): 2637. Shimp Terence A. 1984. Consumer Ethnocentrism - The Concept and a Preliminary Empirical Test. Advances In Consumer Research, 11: 285-90. & Subash Sharma. 1987. Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3): 280-9. Sidanius, Jim; Seymour Feshbach; Shana Levin & Felicia Pratto 1997. The Interface Between Ethnic and National Attachment: Ethnic Pluralism or EthPublic Opinion nic Dominance?, 102-34. Quarterly, 61(1): Smith, Anthony D 1995. Nations and Nationalism in a Global Era. Oxford University Press. Smith, Howard P. & Ellen Weber Rosen 1958. Some Psychological Correlates of World-Mindedness and Authoritarianism. Journal of Personality, 26: 17083.

GEORGE ADAMANTIOS RENE T.C. BALABANIS, DIAMANTOPOULOS,DENISTE MUELLER, MEL.EWAR Smith, M. Brewster 1992. Nationalism, Ethnocentrism, and the New World Order. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 32(4): 76-91 Smith, Peter B., Shaun Dugan & Fons Trompenaars. 1996. National Culture and the Values of Organizational Employees: A Dimensional Analysis across 43 Nations. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 27(2): 231-264. Sumner William Graham 1906. Folkways: The Sociological Importance of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Ginn & Co. Terhune, Kenneth Warren 1964. Nationalism among Foreign and American Students: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8: 256-70. van de Vijver, Fons & Kwok Leung. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for CrossCultural Research. London: Sage. White, Peter A. 1989. A Theory of Causal Processing. British Journal of Psychology, 80: 431-54.

VOL. 32, No. 1, FIRSTQUARTER, 2001