Consumer Ethnocentrism

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National
Identity, and Consumer

Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of
Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity
Theory Perspective
Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth, Vesna Žabkar, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos
ABSTRACT
Consumers’ preferences for domestic over imported products have been investigated in various isolated studies, but
never in a single model incorporating several in-group and out-group consumer orientations at the same time. Building
on social identity theory, this study develops and tests—in two countries—a conceptual model that assesses the relative
influence of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism on consumers’ product judg-
ments and willingness to buy domestic and foreign products. Furthermore, the study develops an empirically based
typology of consumer segments using these sociopsychological traits and subsequently profiles them on consumption-
relevant variables. The findings reveal several undiscovered patterns regarding the interplay of consumer ethnocentrism,
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as drivers of consumer behavior and offer managerial guidance on
their relevance as segmentation variables.
Keywords: consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, consumer cosmopolitanism, structural equation modeling,
cluster analysis
omestic country bias, or consumers’ bias in their ethnocentrism to explain why consumers prefer prod-
D judgments and preferences for domestic products

over foreign alternatives, is well documented in
the literature (e.g., Balabanis and Diamantopoulos
ucts from their home country to foreign alternatives (for
a review, see Shankarmahesh 2006). Consumer ethno-
centrism is based primarily on an economic motive for
2004; Wang and Chen 2004; Watson and Wright 2000). domestic country bias and represents a normative belief
Typically, researchers employ the construct of consumer that it is inappropriate to buy foreign products and that
consumers should instead support domestic companies
through the purchase of domestic products (Shimp and
Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth is Assistant Professor of Marketing,
IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), Université Catholique
Sharma 1987). More recent research, however, has
de Lille (e-mail: k.zeugner-roth@ieseg.fr). Vesna Žabkar is Professor asserted that an exclusive focus on consumer ethnocen-
of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana (e-mail: trism “is, at best, likely to render an incomplete picture
vesna.zabkar@ef.uni-lj.si). Adamantios Diamantopoulos is Professor of local bias-induced consumer behavior” (Josiassen
of International Marketing, Department of International Marketing, 2011, p. 125) and that consideration of a broader range
University of Vienna (e-mail: adamantios.diamantopoulos@univie. of consumer traits is necessary to comprehensively
ac.at). This research was supported by a grant from the Jubiläums-
fonds of the Austrian National Bank (project number 12288) and the
Dr. Theo & Friedl Schöller Research Center for Business and Society. Journal of International Marketing
The authors also thank the JIM review team for helpful comments on ©2015, American Marketing Association
previous versions of this article. Bulent Menguc served as associate Vol. 23, No. 2, 2015, pp. 25–54
editor for this article. ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 25

explain consumer preferences for domestic and foreign suggests that it can potentially overcome domestic coun-
products. try bias (for a collection of essays on the subject, see
Prince 2012). However, “extant research on consumer
This study goes back to the conceptual roots of con- cosmopolitanism has largely ignored potential outcome
sumer ethnocentrism as outlined by social identity variables, despite their obvious managerial relevance”
theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1986) to specify (Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009, p. 416). Specifically,
alternative antecedents of consumer behavior. Social consumer cosmopolitanism has primarily been treated
identity theory makes a clear distinction between a per- as a variable predicting consumers’ intentions to pur-
son’s behavior toward the in-group, which is the home chase global brands (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and
country in our case, and out-groups, which are foreign Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
countries (Brewer 1999; Verlegh 2007). Whereas con- Laroche 2011; Zhou and Belk 2004), though conceptu-
sumer ethnocentrism mainly focuses on bias against alizations of the construct pertain more to variety seek-
(products from) out-groups to explain consumers’ pref- ing and diversity appreciation than searching for the
erences for their home country’s products (Shimp and same (global) brands at home and abroad (Beck 2004;
Sharma 1987), little is known about its relative influ- Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012). Further-
ence if other predictors of pro-in-group or pro-out- more, although consumer cosmopolitanism and con-
group behavior are considered. sumer ethnocentrism are negatively correlated—because
the open-mindedness and variety seeking of consumer
Our study draws on social identity theory and advances cosmopolitans make it difficult for them to take a
extant research on the impact of sociopsychological “viewpoint of unconditional support for one’s country”
traits of consumer behavior by examining the predictive (Roudometof 2005, p. 122)—research has shown that
power of one pro-in-group construct (national identity), “individuals scoring high (low) on consumer cosmopoli-
one anti-out-group construct (consumer ethnocentrism), tanism cannot be automatically assumed to also score
and one pro-out-group construct (consumer cosmopoli- low (high) on localism (or vice-versa)” (Riefler, Diaman-
tanism) as well as the interplay among these constructs topoulos, and Siguaw 2012, p. 299, emphasis added; see
in both domestic and foreign purchase contexts. This also Cannon and Yaprak 2012). Thus, the extent to
method contrasts with previous studies that have mainly which a cosmopolitan consumer also identifies with his
focused on either domestic (e.g., Verlegh 2007) or for- or her country is likely to influence his or her stance
eign (e.g., Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012) toward not only foreign products but also domestic
product preferences rather than a simultaneous consid- products. Yet empirical evidence on the impact of con-
eration of both types of product purchases. Moreover, sumer cosmopolitanism on PJs and WTB domestic
to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has products is lacking.
evaluated the joint predictive validity of consumer eth-
nocentrism, national identity, and consumer cosmopoli- In addition to sociopsychological traits that represent
tanism as drivers of consumer behavior and thereby also stable consumer characteristics affecting in- and out-
explicitly tested for their relative importance regarding group bias, the latter can be influenced by consumers’
their direct and indirect (through product judgments attitudes toward a specific country. Such attitudes are
[PJ]) effects on consumers’ willingness to buy (WTB) reflected in typical evaluative judgments such as like/
domestic and foreign products. dislike, pleasant/unpleasant, and positive/negative
(Ajzen 2001; Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999) and
Investigating consumer ethnocentrism jointly with are, in turn, influenced by consumers’ country images
national identity is important because, according to (Roth and Diamantopoulos 2009) as well as any feelings
social identity theory, in-group bias due to national of animosity (Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998) or
identity results from one’s feeling of attachment to the affinity (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011) toward
in-group, without making specific ex ante assumptions the country concerned. Country attitudes can thus range
about the treatment of the out-group (Brewer 1999; from negative through neutral to positive and must be
Brewer and Gaertner 2003). Therefore, disentangling explicitly controlled for when investigating the impact
consumers’ ethnocentric tendencies from their sense of of sociopsychological traits on outcome variables.
national identity is important, especially with respect to
the treatment of in-groups (home country products) ver- Against this background, the objectives of this study are
sus out-groups (foreign products). As far as consumer twofold. First, from a review of the conceptual domains
cosmopolitanism is concerned, its pro-out-group nature of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and con-
26 Journal of International Marketing

sumer cosmopolitanism and drawing on social identity CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
theory, we develop and subsequently test several
hypotheses regarding these domains’ relative impact on People belong to a variety of groups according to their
PJ and WTB domestic and foreign products, while con- gender, religion, political orientation, and nationality.
trolling for other potential sources of in- and out-group However, whether a particular group membership actu-
bias (in the form of sociodemographics and country ally leads to intergroup behavior depends on the indi-
attitudes). Second, we develop an empirically based vidual person’s degree of identification with this group
typology of consumers using consumer ethnocentrism, (Hogg 2006). Social identity theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as clus- and Turner 1986) examines the relationship of the indi-
tering variables and then profile the identified segments vidual with the group and is an attempt to explain when
on a series of consumer characteristics and consumption- and why people identify with and behave as part of a
relevant variables. group. According to social identity theory, people’s self-
image consists of an individual and a group component—
From a theoretical perspective, the main contribution of that is, a personal identity and a so-called social identity,
our study is that it clarifies how alternative consumer which is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-
sociopsychological traits influence PJ and WTB in both concept which derives from his knowledge of his mem-
home and foreign market settings while explicitly bership of a social group (or groups) together with the
accounting for their complementary or compensatory emotional significance attached to that membership”
influences and controlling for the impact of country atti- (Tajfel 1974, p. 69). Social identity theory further pro-
tudes. Such clarification is important for theory develop- poses that people strive to achieve or maintain a positive
ment because the idea that people prefer products from social identity, thus boosting their self-esteem, and that
their home country does not necessarily imply that they this positive identity derives largely from favorable com-
discriminate against foreign products (Brewer 1979, parisons made between the own group (in-group) and
1999). In this context, extant literature often conflicts other groups (out-groups) (Hogg 2006; Tajfel and
because it sometimes treats national identity as synony- Turner 2004). Because groups require some boundary
mous with consumer ethnocentrism (e.g., Keillor and or demarcation between “in” and “out,” in-groups typi-
Hult 1999; Keillor et al. 1996; Thelen and Honeycutt cally represent the groups that the individual identifies
2004) and sometimes portrays consumer ethnocentrism or at least affiliates with (Turner 2010), whereas out-
as a consequence of consumer cosmopolitanism (e.g., groups are regarded as everything else. As Brewer
Rybina, Reardon, and Humphrey 2010; Steenkamp, (1999, p. 432) states, “ingroup formation involves dif-
Batra, and Alden 2003; Vida and Reardon 2008). ferentiation of the social landscape into those that are
acknowledged to be ‘us’ and those that fall outside that
From a managerial perspective, our results highlight key boundary.” In a country context, the home country is
predictors of PJ and WTB for domestic and foreign prod- typically considered the focal in-group, whereas foreign
ucts and their relative importance in each case. More- countries represent the out-groups (Shankarmahesh
over, our segmentation scheme identifies three distinct 2006; Verlegh 2007).
groups of consumers that show different tendencies in
their PJ and WTB and also differ along several other With regard to in-group versus out-group behavior, it is
managerially relevant characteristics. It also provides fur- important to distinguish between constructs that signify
ther evidence of the distinct nature of national identity attraction to versus repulsion from a group (Josiassen
and consumer ethnocentrism as segmentation variables; 2011). Consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and
whereas ethnocentric consumers are almost never cos- consumer cosmopolitanism all differ substantially in
mopolitan, people who identify strongly with their home this respect, as the following conceptual discussion
country also often exhibit cosmopolitan tendencies. shows.
In the next sections, we provide the conceptual back- Consumer Ethnocentrism

ground on our focal constructs and present our research
model and key hypotheses. We then report on two Shimp and Sharma (1987, p. 280) introduce the con-
empirical studies used to test and validate our model and struct of consumer ethnocentrism as “beliefs held by ...
identify distinct consumer groupings. We conclude by dis- consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality,
cussing the theoretical and managerial implications of our of purchasing foreign-made products.” According to the
findings and offering suggestions for further research. broader concept of ethnocentrism, which is the “view of

things in which one’s own group is the center of every- Consumer Cosmopolitanism
thing, and all others are scaled and rated with reference
to it” (Sumner 1906, p. 13), consumer ethnocentrism is Consumer cosmopolitanism captures “the extent to
a unique form of ethnocentrism that captures only eco- which a consumer (1) exhibits open-mindedness towards
nomic motives for in-group bias, such as the fear that foreign countries and cultures, (2) appreciates the diver-
opting for foreign products threatens the domestic sity brought about by the availability of products from
industry and causes unemployment (Verlegh 2007). different national and cultural origins, and (3) is posi-
Thus, home country bias primarily occurs because of tively disposed towards consuming products from dif-
anti-out-group motives, such as the rejection of foreign ferent countries” (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw,
products in general and the portrayal of everything for- 2012, p. 287). Thus, a key characteristic of cosmopoli-
eign as the antithesis (Levine and Campbell 1972; Shimp tan consumers is their openness toward other peoples
and Sharma 1987). At the same time, ethnocentric con- and cultures, in that they are willing to explore and
sumers also want to protect their economy by purchas- learn from other cultures (Levy et al. 2007). Hannerz
ing domestic products (e.g., Sharma 2011; Supphellen (1990) regards the involvement with foreign people, tra-
and Rittenburg 2001), which makes ethnocentrism a ditions, and lifestyles as a central characteristic of cos-
pro-in-group as well as an anti-out-group construct mopolitan people that sets them apart from certain
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004; Sharma, Shimp, tourists and expatriates who may stay abroad but sim-
and Shin 1995). ply import their home lifestyle. Cosmopolitan con-
sumers not only are open to learning from other cultures
National Identity but also appreciate the differences and variety the world
offers (Featherstone 2002). They display a positive
National identity refers to “the importance of national stance toward the availability of products from different
affiliation as well as the subjective significance of an countries (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
inner bond with the nation” (Blank and Schmidt 2003, and constantly indulge in products, places, and experi-
p. 296) and indicates the extent to which people identify ences originating from cultures other than their own
with and have a positive feeling of affiliation with their (Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009; Riefler, Diaman-
own nation as well as the importance they attach to this topoulos, and Siguaw 2012).
feeling (Feather 1981; Tajfel 1978). Being rooted in
people’s attachment to a nation, national identity Eighteenth-century research describes cosmopolitan
“varies on a positive–negative continuum, which consumers as citizens of the world, implying that they
stretches from a negative identity (in the sense of an regard the world rather than their home country as
explicit contra-identity) to a positive identity with a their personal in-group (Hill 1998). From this perspec-
nation” (Blank 2003, p. 260). However, in most cases, tive, cosmopolitanism could also be considered a form
national identity is likely to be positive because people of “foreign in-group favoritism.” The contemporary
hold a positive view of themselves, which they then perspective of cosmopolitans, however, describes them
transfer to the nation to which they belong (Mackie and as “those who harbor a transnational frame of refer-
Smith 1998). Therefore, in this study we focus on the ence…, which means they think themselves beyond
positive form of national identity (for an example of their nation” (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
negative national identity [i.e., national disidentifica- 2012, p. 286). Thus, cosmopolitans do not neglect their
tion], see Josiassen 2011). local ties (Cannon and Yaprak 2012; Riefler, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012) but, as open-minded
In-group bias due to national identity results solely from people, search for diversity and indulge in the con-
a person’s feeling of attachment to the in-group without sumption of foreign products (Hannerz 1990; Levy et
any explicit reference to out-groups (Brewer 1999). al. 2007; Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009). From an
Therefore, national identity is fundamentally different in-group/out-group perspective, this implies that cos-
from consumer ethnocentrism, which postulates that in- mopolitan consumers know well what their in-group
group bias occurs because of a feeling of superiority of the (in the sense of home country) is and use the principles
in-group coupled with an attribution of inferiority to all and practices from their home country to compare it
other groups to which one does not belong (Adorno et al. with others (Thompson and Tambyah 1999). However,
1950; Levine and Campbell 1972). Therefore, national because they like to experience other cultures and their
identity is primarily a pro-in-group (rather than an anti- products, they are attracted by everything that the out-
out-group) construct (Bizumic et al. 2009; Brewer 1999). group has to offer (Cannon and Yaprak 2002). There-

fore, consumer cosmopolitanism is primarily a pro-out- from the out-group subsequently leads to a (positive)
group construct. bias in the judgment of the own group and its achieve-
ments, because such judgments have more impact on the
self if the in-group identity is more important (Hogg
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES 2006; Tajfel and Turner 2004). Verlegh (2007) demon-
strates this effect in a country context, showing that
Prior research on in-group versus out-group bias typi- consumers scoring high on national identity are indeed
cally has examined the link between sociopsychological biased in their PJ of and WTB domestic products. In
traits of consumers and their ability to predict con- contrast, consumer ethnocentrism is based on people’s
sumers’ WTB, both as a direct relationship and through fear that purchasing foreign (and not domestic) prod-
PJ (Josiassen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998; ucts might hurt the domestic economy (Shimp and
Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009; Shimp and Sharma Sharma 1987). As such, Shimp and Sharma’s (1987)
1987; Verlegh 2007). Such research draws on people’s original conceptualization (and definition) does not
tendency to favor consistent preference systems (see even include consumers’ intentions toward domestic
Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), in which people favor and products but rather highlights a clear bias against for-
therefore strive to achieve consistency among their eign products. Subsequent research, however, shows
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Therefore, consistent that consumer ethnocentrism also (positively) biases the
with balance theory (Heider 1958), consumers’ willingness of consumers to buy domestic products (for
sociopsychological traits should affect their PJ and WTB an overview of studies, see Shankarmahesh 2006), pri-
to reduce or avoid any tension that might otherwise marily as a consequence of avoiding the purchase of for-
arise (Josiassen 2011). eign products.
Table 1 summarizes extant findings on the individual Research on social identity theory has confirmed that
impact of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, both motives are strong predictors of consumer behav-
and cosmopolitanism on these outcome variables. ior, but their relative importance depends on the context
Unlike prior research, our model (Figure 1) focuses at hand. Early studies reveal that even arbitrary and vir-
explicitly on the relative impact of sociopsychological tually meaningless distinctions between groups (e.g.,
characteristics on domestic and foreign PJ and WTB preferences for certain paintings or the color of their
while explicitly controlling for the influence of country shirts) can lead to in-group bias in that the own group
attitudes and sociodemographics. We elaborate on the and its achievements are better evaluated than others
model relationships next. (Tajfel 1974). Brewer (1979, 1999) extends these find-
ings by suggesting that in-group bias primarily results
Domestic PJ and WTB from the motive to maintain a positive social identity
rather than to discriminate against other groups. How-
With respect to the relative importance of the three ever, discrimination can occur under certain circum-
sociopsychological constructs on domestic product pur- stances, such as competition or perceived threat among
chases, consumer ethnocentrism and national identity groups (Brown 2000).
are both based on an individual’s attachment with the
in-group (i.e., the home country) and therefore should Translating these results to our context implies that in-
play a stronger role than consumer cosmopolitanism, group bias due to national identity should almost arise
which focuses primarily on a person’s relationship with naturally because even a relatively modest identification
out-groups (i.e., foreign countries). As Table 1 shows, with the home country should bias consumers’ percep-
both consumer ethnocentrism and national identity bias tions in favor of domestic alternatives (Wetherell 2010).
consumers’ PJ and WTB in favor of domestic products; Conversely, the strength of the impact of consumer eth-
however, the mechanism that leads to in-group bias dif- nocentrism would depend on certain factors, such as the
fers (Verlegh 2007). More specifically, consumers scor- degree to which certain foreign products threaten the
ing high on national identity prefer products from their domestic economy (Brewer 1999; Brown 2000). In the
home country because of their “need for [a] positive absence of such factors, identity motives are more likely
social identity, expressed through a desire to create, to bias consumers’ perceptions than their ethnocentric
maintain, or enhance the positively valued distinctive- tendencies. Empirical evidence also shows that the
ness of ingroups compared to outgroups” (Turner 1999, impact of national identity on PJ and WTB is strong and
p. 8). This desire to positively distinguish the in-group present across product categories (Verlegh 2007),

Table 1. Overview of Prior Findings
Construct Impact on… Signa Examples from the Literature
Consumer ethnocentrism Domestic PJ +/0 Huddleston, Good, and Stoel (2001); Josiassen (2011);
Kim and Pysarchik (2000); Strizhakova and Coulter
(2015); Supphellen and Rittenburg (2001); Verlegh (2007)
Domestic WTB +/0 Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004); Josiassen (2011);
Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan (2006); Sharma (2011);
Strizhakova and Coulter (2015); Verlegh (2007); Wang
and Chen (2004)
Foreign PJ –/0 Huddleston, Good, and Stoel (2001); Kim and Pysarchik
(2000); Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan (2006); Klein,
Ettenson, and Morris (1998); Oberecker and Diaman-
topoulos (2011); Shimp and Sharma (1987); Verlegh
(2007)
Foreign WTB –/0 Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004); Klein, Ettenson,
and Krishnan (2006); Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998);
Oberecker and Diamantopoulos (2011); Sharma (2011);
Sharma, Shimp, and Shin (1995); Shimp and Sharma
(1987); Verlegh (2007)
National identity Domestic PJ + Verlegh (2007)
Domestic WTB + Verlegh (2007)
Foreign PJ 0 Verlegh (2007)
Foreign WTB –/0 Verlegh (2007) (significant negative correlation between
national identity and foreign WTB for two of eight prod-
uct categories; remainder nonsignificant)
Consumer cosmopolitanism Domestic PJ 0 Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009)
Domestic WTB ? Not tested so far
Foreign PJ ? Not tested so far
WTB foreign products in + Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009); Riefler, Diaman-
general topoulos, and Siguaw (2012)
WTB certain global +/0 Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos (2009); Cleveland,
product categories Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011)
aEmpirical relationships found (but not necessarily hypothesized).
whereas the impact of consumer ethnocentrism tends to sumers’ preferences for specific (typically global) prod-
be product category and country specific (Balabanis and ucts and brands (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and
Diamantopoulos 2004). Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
Laroche 2011; Zhou and Belk 2004) without distin-
In contrast to consumer ethnocentrism and national guishing domestic and foreign product origins. However,
identity, little is known about the impact of consumer such a distinction is clearly important because of the very
cosmopolitanism on PJ and WTB in a domestic setting nature of consumer cosmopolitanism as a pro-out-group
(see Table 1). Indeed, most empirical research focusing construct. Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009) and
on consumer cosmopolitanism ties this construct to con- Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012) conceptu-

Figure 1. Research Model
Country
Attitudes
Consumer
Ethnocentrism
Home/Foreign Home/Foreign
H1 and
National H3
Identity PJ WTB
Consumer
Cosmopolitanism H2 and H4
Sociodemographics
Notes: Dotted lines represent control paths or previously established relationships.
ally argue and empirically demonstrate that consumer In summary, the preceding discussion leads to the fol-
cosmopolitanism is unrelated to consumers’ preferences lowing hypotheses regarding the relative impact of the
for global brands but rather predicts their preferences for three sociopsychological traits on domestic PJ and
foreign products in general (regardless of whether the WTB:
latter are global brands). In a recent state-of-the-art
review, Cannon and Yaprak (2012, p. 28) conclude that H1: National identity has a stronger (positive)
“the concept of cosmopolitanism can be confounded by impact than consumer ethnocentrism on
the fact that cosmopolitans can have strong local connec- domestic PJ, whereas cosmopolitanism has the
tions.” According to the literature, a cosmopolitan orien- weakest (positive) influence.
tation is characterized by the formation of multiple local
and foreign loyalties (Beck 2004; Riefler, Diamantopou- H2: National identity has a stronger (positive)
los, and Siguaw 2012), which finally determine judg- impact than consumer ethnocentrism on the
ments and behavior. For cosmopolitan consumers, the willingness of consumers to buy domestic
home country and its products might serve as a standard products, whereas cosmopolitanism has the
of comparison when interacting with foreign countries weakest (positive) influence.
and trying out new customs and products (Thompson
and Tambyah 1999). Thus, although compared with Foreign PJ and WTB
consumer ethnocentrism and national identity, the
impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic PJ Regarding the relative impact of the three sociopsycho-
and WTB should be relatively modest, we still posit a logical constructs on foreign PJ and WTB, both con-
positive relationship to these outcome variables. sumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism also involve

a relationship to out-groups, which is negative in the H4: Cosmopolitanism has a stronger (positive)
case of consumer ethnocentrism and positive in the case impact than consumer ethnocentrism (nega-
of consumer cosmopolitanism. In contrast, national tive) on the willingness of consumers to buy
identity is a “pure” pro-in-group construct and there- foreign products, whereas national identity
fore should exert a weaker effect (if any) on foreign has no influence.
product purchases.
As Figure 1 shows, consistent with prior research (e.g.,
Prior research concludes that consumer ethnocentrism Josiassen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998;
“appears to be more capable of explaining consumers’ Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009), our model contains
(positive) bias toward home products ... rather than a link between PJ and WTB. It also includes country
(negative) bias against foreign products from specific attitudes, respondent age, and income as control
countries” (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004, p. variables.1
91). In contrast, the very nature of the consumer cos-
mopolitanism construct is characterized by an openness
to foreign countries and their products (Riefler and Dia- STUDY 1
mantopoulos 2009), as reflected in an increased WTB
the latter (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012).
Data Collection
Therefore, we expect the positive bias due to cosmopoli- We collected data for Study 1 in Austria, which also
tanism to outweigh any negative bias due to ethnocen- represents the home country in our model. In terms of
tric tendencies. Thus, consumer cosmopolitism should gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Austria is
have a stronger impact on foreign PJ and WTB than similar to the countries typically chosen in similar sur-
consumer ethnocentrism. vey research (i.e., the United States, the United King-
dom, Canada, Japan, and Germany). It has several bor-
Regarding the influence of national identity on foreign dering countries, and thus its citizens have likely been
PJ and WTB, previous research assumes (but does not directly exposed to other countries, their people, and
empirically establish) a negative relationship (Verlegh their products. At the time of data collection, imports
2007). Although social identity theory predicts that in (goods and services) accounted for approximately 55%
special instances involving competition or perceived of its GDP (Statistics Austria 2013). Moreover, Austria
threat, derogation can occur (Brewer 1979; Duckitt and ranks among the top three countries in the KOF index
Mphuthing 1998), in the absence of such factors, out- of globalization, which takes into account economic,
groups such as foreign countries are likely to be “viewed social, and political aspects of globalization (Dreher,
with indifference, sympathy, even admiration, as long as Gaston, and Martens 2008). Overall, this evidence indi-
inter-group distinctiveness is maintained” (Brewer cates that this country is significantly intertwined with
1999, p. 434). Empirical research has shown support for other countries.
this argument. For example, in a study on black African
students’ ethnic group identification and attitudes Following intensive discussions with several experts in
toward English whites, Afrikaans whites, and whites in country-of-origin research, we chose Italy as the foreign
general, black African identification was only negatively country stimulus. Italy is the second most important
related to attitudes toward Afrikaans whites but not trading partner for Austria and the most preferred
toward whites in general (Duckitt and Mphuthing tourism destination (Statistics Austria 2013). Thus, we
1998). Thus, both the tenets of social identity theory assume that Austrian consumers can evaluate Italy and
and the absence of empirical findings pointing to the its products. Regarding Austrian consumers’ general
contrary lead us to expect that national identity will attitudes toward Italy, a prestudy (N = 200) revealed
have no significant impact on either foreign PJ or WTB. that although favorable attitudes prevailed (see also
In summary, we postulate the following hypotheses Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011), neutral and
regarding the relative impact of the three sociopsycho- negative attitudes were also widespread (which avoids
logical traits on foreign PJ and WTB: any “restriction-of-range” problems on the country atti-
tudes variable).
H3: Cosmopolitanism has a stronger (positive)
impact than consumer ethnocentrism (nega- For the main survey, we employed a quota sample,
tive) on foreign PJ, whereas national identity which was nationally representative of the Austrian
has no influence. population with respect to gender and age. Data were

professionally collected by a major international pared with 4% of the working population) and students
research agency that maintains representative online (7% compared with 5% of the overall population).
panels in several countries around the world. To avoid
order effects, we randomized the order in which the Construct Measurement
stimulus countries (i.e., Austria and Italy) were pre-
sented to respondents. In total, 422 completed question- We used previously validated scales to measure our con-
naires were returned, 411 of which were fully usable. structs. Whenever a scale was developed in several lan-
guages (e.g., in the case of the CETSCALE or the C-
Table 2 (left panel) summarizes the demographic profile COSMO scale), we contacted the respective authors and
of the sample with respect to gender, age, location (urban used the original German version in the questionnaire.
or rural), and median disposable income and compares For the rest, to ensure translation equivalence, a bilin-
them with census statistics. Respondents were slightly gual translator first translated the English version of the
more educated (80% graduated from high school, com- scale into German and then a second bilingual translator
pared with 70% in the overall population), and the sam- independently retranslated it into English (Craig and
ple was broadly consistent with census figures in terms of Douglas 2005). The two translators subsequently recon-
employment (approximately two-thirds of respondents ciled any differences. We then pretested the translated
were employed, and 20% were retired), with a slight instrument with 20 consumers using the protocol
overrepresentation of unemployed people (8% com- approach (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos 1998) to
Table 2. Demographic Profiles of Samples
Austrian Sample (Study 1) Slovenian Sample (Study 2)

Census Census
N Percentage Percentagea N Percentage Percentageb
Gender
Male 202 49.1 49.7 205 50.6 51.5
Female 209 50.9 50.3 200 49.4 48.5
Total (population 18–70 years) 411 100 100 405 100 100
Age
18–29 years 94 22.9 21.5 114 28.1 23.8
30–39 years 85 20.7 21.2 104 25.7 24.9
40–49 years 88 21.4 23.3 102 25.2 24.3
50–59 years 95 23.1 17.8 85 21.0 24.5
60–70 years 49 11.9 16.2
Locationc
Urban 271 65.9 66 235 58.0 50
Rural 140 34.1 34 170 42.0 50
Incomed
Median disposable income (in €) 18,882 21,807 13,875 12,122
aSource: Statistics Austria 2013.

bSource: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia 2013.
cSource: United Nations 2014.
dSource: Eurostat 2014.

ensure that all items were comprehensible and no diffi- mopolitanism was the only multidimensional construct
culties in answering occurred. in our study, we first assessed its psychometric proper-
ties by specifying a higher second-order factor with
We further pretested the questionnaire on a second sam- three first-order dimensions (i.e., open-mindedness,
ple of 83 university students to gain initial insights into diversity appreciation, and consumption transcending
the psychometric properties of the measurement items. borders; see Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
On average, respondents took 15 minutes to fill out the 2012). This operationalization showed acceptable
questionnaire, which lies within the range of recom- measurement properties (c2 = 168.89, d.f. = 41; root
mended questionnaire length (Hinkin 1995; Podsakoff mean square error of approximation = .08; nonnormed
et al. 2003). All individual items were screened in terms fit index = .96; comparative fit index = .97); subse-
of means, actual ranges, variances, and missing values quently, we calculated an average score for each dimen-
(DeVellis 2003) and showed desirable qualities (i.e., sion and then used these scores as observed variables
means were close to the center of the theoretical range, (indicators) in the structural equation modeling (SEM)
variances were relatively high, and no item had exces- analysis (for a similar approach, see Steenkamp, Batra,
sive missing values). Moreover, all internal consistency and Alden 2003).
estimates of the scales capturing the constructs of inter-
est were acceptable (alpha values well exceeded .70). Country Attitudes. Ajzen (2001, p. 28) states that “there
The Appendix lists the items used to measure each con- is general agreement that attitude represents a summary
struct in our model along with relevant psychometric evaluation of a psychological object captured in such
information. attribute dimensions such as good-bad, harmful-
beneficial, pleasant-unpleasant, likable-dislikable.”
Sociopsychological Constructs. According to Blank and Therefore, we measured country attitudes with five
Schmidt (2003, p. 296), there is “little disagreement on items from Schmitt, Pan, and Tavassoli (1994) rated on
the measurement of national identity.” Thus, similar to a nine-point semantic differential format.
Verlegh (2007), we used a four-item measure for
national identity with items drawn from Doosje, Elle- PJ. We measured PJ with Roth and Romeo’s (1992)
mers, and Spears (1995) and Mlicki and Ellemers well-established scale that captures consumers’ evalua-
(1996). We measured consumer ethnocentrism with the tions of products from a specific country in terms of
five-item version of the CETSCALE, which was exten- innovativeness, design, prestige, and workmanship. This
sively validated in a survey of more than 3,000 con- scale has been widely used in previous research (e.g.,
sumers across the European Union (Steenkamp, Ter Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos, and Odenkotte
Hofstede, and Wedel 1999; Verlegh 2007). We opera- 2012; Okechuku and Onyemah 1999; Pappu, Quester,
tionalized consumer cosmopolitanism using the three- and Cooksey 2007). Respondents rated the four items
dimensional C-COSMO measure initially proposed by on a nine-point semantic-differential format.
Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Egger (2007) and Riefler
and Diamantopoulos (2009) and subsequently refined WTB. We measured consumers’ WTB products from the
and validated by Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw stimulus countries with three items from Putrevu and
(2012). Specifically, we measured open-mindedness Lord (1994) rated on a seven-point scale. Importantly,
with four items (e.g., “I like to learn about other cul- previous research has shown that this measure corre-
tures,” “I like having the opportunity to meet people lates well with actual product ownership (see Josiassen
from many different countries”), diversity appreciation 2011).
with three items (e.g., “Having access to products com-
ing from many different countries is valuable to me,” Measurement Model
“The availability of foreign products in the domestic
market provides valuable diversity”), and consumption We performed SEM using LISREL 8.80 to evaluate the
transcending borders with four items (e.g., “I like read- measurement properties of the operationalizations of
ing foreign newspapers and magazines to inform myself our focal constructs and to test the research hypotheses.
what is happening around the world,” “I like spending We investigated the measurement models for the
my holidays in foreign countries”). Respondents rated consumer-specific (i.e., consumer ethnocentrism,
the items for all three sociopsychological constructs on national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism) and
a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (“strongly dis- country-specific (i.e., country attitudes, PJ, and WTB)
agree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). Because consumer cos- constructs separately and together. All measurement

models showed acceptable fit, requiring no adjustments criminant validity. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics
in their original specification (see the Appendix). Next, for the constructs in our study.
we calculated composite reliabilities, all of which were
well above the recommended threshold value of .60 Consumer ethnocentrism is positively but moderately
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988); average variance extracted correlated with national identity (r = .31, p < .05),
(AVE) values were at or above .50. We assessed discrimi- which is consistent with our expectations because both
nant validity among country attitudes, PJ, WTB, and constructs share a pro-in-group orientation. Also as we
sociopsychological traits by comparing the shared con- expected, consumer cosmopolitanism is negatively cor-
struct variances with the respective AVEs (Fornell and related with consumer ethnocentrism (r = –.38, p < .05)
Larcker 1981). All AVEs exceeded the squared correla- because the former construct values out-groups,
tions between the constructs, providing support for dis- whereas the latter devalues them. Consumer cosmopoli-
Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, AVEs, and Correlations Among Constructs
Study 1: Austrian Sample (N = 411)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Consumer ethnocentrism .64 .095 .141 .025 .015 .057 .022 .047 .122
2. National identity .308* .77 .005 .223 .004 .134 .008 .113 .006
3. Consumer cosmopolitanism –.376* –.069 .54 .002 .051 .002 .109 .001 .122
4. Country attitudes (home) .158* .473* –.049 .72 .070 .115 .025 .078 .000
5. Country attitudes (foreign) –.124* .061 .225* .264* .82 .008 .219 .007 .155
6. PJ (home) .238* .366* .045 .340* .090 .54 .147 .105 .000
7. PJ (foreign) –.150* .089 .330* .157* .468* .384* .51 .023 .223
8. WTB (home) .217* .337* .027 .279* .085 .323* .152* .61 .018
9. WTB (foreign) –.349* –.079 .349* –.007 .394* –.002 .472* .133* .76
M 4.16 6.24 5.47 7.83 6.61 7.53 6.84 6.67 5.16
SD 1.63 1.19 1.00 1.48 1.84 1.16 1.33 .75 1.60
Study 2: Slovenian Sample (N = 405)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Consumer ethnocentrism .66 .068 .149 .009 .008 .020 .007 .031 .028
2. National identity .260* .71 .014 .191 .004 .086 .005 .069 .004
3. Consumer cosmopolitanism –.385* –.117* .50 .002 .018 .001 .015 .001 .056
4. Country attitudes (home) .092 .437* .043 .68 .134 .094 .038 .055 .000
5. Country attitudes (foreign) –.088 .063 .134* .366* .80 .047 .112 .016 .065
6. PJ (home) .143* .294* .028 .307* .216* .57 .225 .084 .004
7. PJ (foreign) –.084 .073 .121* .195* .334* .474* .50 .054 .136
8. WTB (home) .176* .263* –.027 .235* .126* .289* .232* .66 .026
9. WTB (foreign) –.167* –.064 .236* .000 .255* .066 .369* .162* .77
M 3.50 6.09 5.76 7.30 5.44 5.90 6.22 6.07 4.25
SD 1.65 1.28 .86 1.58 1.70 1.44 1.40 1.17 1.69
*p < .05 or better.

Notes: Correlations are below the diagonal, AVE is on the main diagonal (bold text), and squared multiple correlations are above the diagonal.

tanism has a nonsignificant correlation with national set a specific path coefficient to 0. Because these con-
identity (r = –.07, p > .10), indicating that the two con- straints resulted in nonnested models, chi-square differ-
structs are conceptually orthogonal in nature (with the ence tests for model comparison could not be not
first being pro-out-group and the second being pro-in- applied (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000). Instead,
group). The low shared variances among the three we used the expected cross-validation index, Akaike
sociopsychological traits serve to further emphasize information criterion, consistent Akaike information
their distinctive in- and out-group orientations, as previ- criterion, and variance explained as comparison criteria
ously discussed. (see Table 5).
Common Method Variance Assessment Domestic PJ and WTB (H1 and H2). In line with our
expectations, national identity directly (and positively)
Because all data are self-reported and collected using a influenced domestic PJ (b = .25, t = 2.89, p < .001) and
cross-sectional research design, common method vari- WTB domestic products (b = .19, t = 1.72, p < .05).
ance (CMV) may confound the true relationships Consumer ethnocentrism significantly and positively
among the theoretical constructs of interest (Chang, affected both domestic PJ (b = .24, t = 3.06, p < .001)
Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010). Consequently, we fol- and WTB domestic products (b = .13, t = 1.68, p < .05).
lowed both ex ante (procedural) and ex post (statistical) Finally, consumer cosmopolitanism positively influ-
remedies to control for CMV. Regarding procedural enced domestic PJ (b = .19, t = 2.70, p < .01) but not
remedies, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest, we adopted WTB domestic products (b = .09, t = .89, p > .05).
different response formats and a counterbalancing ques-
tion order. For example, we asked respondents about For a formal test of H1 and H2, we compared models
their WTB products before asking for their PJ to avoid with a free estimation of the paths between national
priming effects. Regarding statistical remedies, in the identity, consumer ethnocentrism, and consumer cos-
pretest, we also included a ten-item measure for social mopolitanism and PJ or WTB with models in which we
desirability taken from Netemeyer, Burton, and Lichten- set each of these paths (one at a time) to 0. For PJ, as
stein (1995) and originally developed by Crowne and expected, we observed the highest deterioration in model
Marlowe (1960). All correlations between the social fit for the model when we set the path from national
desirability scale and our construct measures were not identity to 0 and all other paths were freely estimated.
significant. In addition, in the main study, we employed Furthermore, we observed the lowest deterioration in
Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable assess- model fit for the model with the path from consumer
ment technique to assess CMV using “Germany is a cosmopolitanism set to 0. Therefore, H1 receives full
country of my dreams” (measured on a seven-point support; national identity is a stronger predictor of
scale) as the marker variable. We selected this item domestic PJ than consumer ethnocentrism, and both
because it was conceptually unrelated to both our have a stronger impact than consumer cosmopolitanism.
dependent and predictor variables. All correlation coef- For WTB domestic products, the model with national
ficients that were significant on a bivariate basis identity as the predictor outperformed the model with
remained significant after we partialed out the marker consumer ethnocentrism, and both were better predic-
variable. In light of these analyses, we conclude that tors than consumer cosmopolitanism (which, as we
CMV does not seem to pose a major threat in our study. noted previously, did not significantly influence WTB);
these results provide full support for H2.
Structural Model
Foreign PJ and WTB (H3 and H4). Consumer cos-
Consistent with our research hypotheses, we estimated a mopolitanism had a positive, significant impact on for-
model containing all paths from our sociopsychological eign PJ (b = .30, t = 4.39, p < .001) but not on con-
constructs to domestic and foreign PJ and WTB. As pre- sumers’ WTB foreign products (b = .09, t = 1.32, p >
viously noted, we also included country attitudes and .05). For consumer ethnocentrism, no significant impact
consumer demographics (age and income) as control on foreign PJ emerged (b = –.03, t = –0.41, p > .05),
variables in the model (Table 4). while its impact on WTB foreign products was negative
and significant (b = –.24, t = –5.44, p < .001). Finally,
We tested the hypothesized relationships through model national identity did not significantly affect consumers’
comparison. For testing the relative strength of path WTB foreign products (b = –.05, t = –.99, p > .05) but
coefficients, we estimated several models in which we positively affected foreign PJ (b = .13, t = 2.16, p < .05).

Table 4. Study 1 Results: SEM
Domestic (Austrian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Hypothesized Paths Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients
Consumer Ethnocentrism
CET Æ PJ .17** .24** –.02 –.03
CET Æ WTB .06* .13* –.23** –.24**
National Identity
NATID Æ PJ .23** .25** .13* .13*
NATID Æ WTB .11* .19* –.07 –.05
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
COSMO Æ PJ .22** .19** .42** .30**
COSMO Æ WTB .07 .09 .15 .09
Control Variables
Country attitudes Æ PJ .24** .22** .26** .40**
Country attitudes Æ WTB .07 .10 .14** .17**
PJ Æ WTB .17** .27** .48** .39**
Age Æ PJ .05 .02 .29* .08*
Age Æ WTB –.02 –.01 –.14 –.03
Income Æ PJ –.04 –.07 –.10** –.15**
Income Æ WTB –.01 –.04 .03 .05
Model Fit c2 = 892.833 (p = .0), d.f. 333; RMSEA = .04; NFI = .96; SRMR = .04
*p < .05.
**p < .001.
Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NFI = normed fit index, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.
For a formal test of H3 and H4, we again compared the The results in Tables 4 and 5 also provide support for
models with free estimation of the paths between con- the expected (positive) link between PJ and WTB and
sumer cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, or highlight the importance of controlling for country atti-
national identity and PJ or WTB with a model in which tudes. These attitudes have a substantial (positive)
the relevant path was set to 0 (see Table 5). For foreign impact on both outcome variables, beyond those of the
PJ, in line with H3, the model in which cosmopolitanism three sociopsychological traits.
was freely estimated outperformed the models with con-
sumer ethnocentrism and national identity across all cri- Discussion
teria. However, because national identity also had a
(unexpected) positive impact on foreign PJ, H3 receives In Study 1, we aimed to disentangle the influence of con-
only partial support. For WTB foreign products, contrary sumer ethnocentrism from that of national identity and
to our expectations, consumer ethnocentrism outper- consumer cosmopolitanism while controlling for coun-
formed cosmopolitanism, whereas, as we expected, try attitudes. Both national identity and consumer eth-
national identity showed no significant impact. There- nocentrism influence domestic PJ and WTB domestic
fore, H4 receives support, but only with respect to products, but the impact of national identity was
national identity; the expected order of influence between stronger than that of ethnocentrism. National identity
cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism receives no support. also had a positive influence on foreign PJ. Though per-

Table 5. Study 1 Results: Comparison Criteria
R2 PJ Home R2 WTB Home R2 PJ Foreign R2 WTB Foreign d.f. ECVI AIC CAIC
Conceptual model .264 .244 .364 .410 333 2.003 821.344 1,333.240
Home Country PJ
CET set to 0 .222 .239 .364 .415 334 2.024 829.850 1,336.728
NATID set to 0 .230 .235 .358 .412 334 2.030 832.406 1,339.284
COSMO set to 0 .234 .241 .337 .405 334 2.014 825.604 1,332.482
Home WTB
CET set to 0 .267 .236 .364 .416 334 2.004 821.841 1,328.719
NATID set to 0 .267 .228 .363 .412 334 2.012 824.994 1,331.872
COSMO set to 0 .266 .239 .364 .407 334 1.997 818.911 1,325.789
Foreign PJ
CET set to 0 .267 .244 .365 .409 334 1.999 819.671 1,326.549
NATID set to 0 .246 .239 .352 .411 334 2.011 824.324 1,331.202
COSMO set to 0 .244 .242 .295 .402 334 2.038 835.511 1,342.389
Foreign WTB
CET set to 0 .261 .256 .364 .381 334 2.030 832.149 1,339.027
NATID set to 0 .264 .248 .363 .408 334 2.001 820.495 1,327.373
COSMO set to 0 .266 .242 .369 .409 334 2.003 821.104 1,327.981
Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, NATID = national identity, COSMO = consumer cosmopolitanism, ECVI = expected cross-validation index, AIC = Akaike
information criterion, CAIC = consistent Akaike information criterion.
haps somewhat surprising, this finding is fully in line STUDY 2

with previous findings in the social psychology literature Data Collection and Construct Measurement
(e.g., Brewer 1979; Duckitt and Mphuthing 1998),
showing that national identity is a pro-in-group but not We conducted Study 2 in Slovenia, a country that pro-
anti-out-group construct. vides a good comparison with Austria. Both are neigh-
boring countries of comparable size, are members of
Regarding consumer cosmopolitanism, although we the European Union, and share a portion of their his-
found that it had the expected positive influence on for- tory (both belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire).
eign PJ, it also had a positive impact on domestic PJ. However, they are divided by language (Slovenian vs.
Because prior empirical evidence on the impact of con- German), political legacy (Slovenia was part of socialist
sumer cosmopolitanism on domestic buying behavior is Yugoslavia), and economic development (GDP per
practically nonexistent, it is difficult to know whether capita in purchasing power parity terms for 2014 was
this finding is idiosyncratic to the present sample or 82 for Slovenia and 128 for Austria, EU-28 = 100;
more broadly applicable; the same applies to the non- Eurostat 2014). We retained Italy as the foreign coun-
significant impact of cosmopolitanism on WTB foreign try stimulus because it is a neighboring country of
products, which contradicts prior research (e.g., Riefler, Slovenia and is its second-largest export and import
Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2012). To shed light on partner (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
these issues and to investigate the extent to which the 2013). Thus, as is the case for Study 1, we can confi-
patterns of results pertaining to the influence of con- dently assume that respondents are sufficiently familiar
sumer ethnocentrism and national identity are generali- with Italy and its products. Furthermore, as in Study 1,
zable, we conducted a second study to test our research a pretest revealed that Slovenians held positive, neutral,
model in a different setting. and negative attitudes toward Italy, thus again avoiding

any restriction-of-range problems on the country atti- in Study 1. This suggests that a cosmopolitan orienta-
tudes variable. tion also has implications for domestic products, an
issue we address subsequently.
We used the same questionnaire and translation tech-
niques as in Study 1 and had the questionnaire adminis-
tered to a nationally representative Slovenian sample by IDENTIFICATION OF CONSUMER SEGMENTS
the same global market research agency as in Study 1,
resulting in 405 usable responses. The data for Study 2
Cluster Analysis
were collected about nine months after Study 1. Table 2 Having tested our research model in two independent
(right panel) shows the distribution of the sample in studies, we next aimed to identify distinct groups of
terms of gender, age, location (urban or rural), and consumers (regardless of their location) on the basis of
median disposable income, as well as corresponding their responses on consumer ethnocentrism, national
census statistics. identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism. Mean scores
for each of the 816 respondents (combined samples in
As in Study 1, we used Lindell and Whitney ’s (2001) Studies 1 and 2) on these traits provided the input for a
marker variable technique to assess CMV and found no two-step clustering procedure (Punj and Stewart 1983).
evidence of a threat of CMV in Study 2. Estimation of In the first step, we used Ward’s hierarchical clustering
the measurement models revealed that all constructs had with squared Euclidean distance to identify a prelimi-
acceptable psychometric properties, requiring no adjust- nary set of cluster solutions as the basis for determining
ment in their initial specifications (see the Appendix and the appropriate number of clusters; this method can
Table 3). We also tested for measurement invariance generate homogeneous clusters of relatively equal size
between Austria and Slovenia (using multigroup confir- (Hair et al. 2010). We determined the number of clusters
matory factor analysis with increasingly restrictive using the elbow criterion and the Ward criterion func-
forms of invariance; see Steenkamp and Baumgartner tion, which showed a large decrease in the relevant coef-
1998) because Italy was a common stimulus country in ficient when moving from a three- to a four-cluster solu-
both studies. Configural and full metric invariance tion. Thus, a three-cluster solution seemed most
could be established for all study constructs except con- appropriate for our data. In the second step, we used a
sumer cosmopolitanism, for which the chi-square differ- nonhierarchical, k-means clustering procedure (Mac-
ence test for the metric and configural invariance models Queen 1967) to develop a three-cluster solution. The
became nonsignificant only when we estimated open- group centroids computed in the hierarchical procedure
mindedness separately for each country (thus revealing were specified as initial clusters for the k-means cluster-
partial metric invariance). ing. Following the same procedure, we conducted addi-
tional cluster analyses for each country separately. The
Structural Model results consistently revealed three clusters mirroring
those derived using the combined sample. Table 8 sum-
Having established the soundness of our measures in the marizes the empirical segments resulting from the clus-
Slovenian sample, we estimated a structural model iden- ter analysis.
tical to the one used in Study 1 and also used the same
nonnested model tests to test our hypotheses. In line with Pure Cosmopolitans (15%). Consumers in the pure cos-
Study 1, the findings (see Tables 6 and 7) provide full mopolitan cluster display a high level of cosmopoli-
support for H1, H2, and H4 for which partial support tanism, while exhibiting moderate to low attachment to
was found in Study 1 (as consumer cosmopolitanism their home country (in terms of both national identity
positively affects WTB foreign products). The findings and consumer ethnocentrism). In terms of size, this seg-
also confirm the positive link between PJ and WTB and, ment is the smallest, comparable in size to the “transna-
similar to Study 1, show that country attitudes are additional” segment (15%) of Cleveland, Papadopoulos,
tional predictors of these outcomes. However, unlike and Laroche (2011), who use ethnic identity and cos-
Study 1, we found no support for H3, as neither con- mopolitanism as clustering variables, but smaller than
sumer cosmopolitanism nor consumer ethnocentrism sig- the “pure cosmopolitan” segment (27%) of Riefler, Dia-
nificantly influenced foreign PJ. mantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012), which groups con-
sumers according to their levels of cosmopolitanism and
Note that in Study 2 we again observed the positive localism. In terms of composition, this cluster contains
impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic PJ as practically equal proportions of Austrian and Slovenian

Table 6. Study 2 Results: SEM
Domestic ( Slovenian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Hypothesized Paths Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients
CET Æ PJ .12* .15* –.02 –.03
CET Æ WTB .08* .11* –.02 –.02
National Identity
NATID Æ PJ .26*** .25*** .10 .11
NATID Æ WTB .13* .14* –.10 –.07
COSMO Æ PJ .22* .12* .21 .13
COSMO Æ WTB .06 .04 .46*** .20***
Control Variables
Country attitudes Æ PJ .22** .19** .18*** .26***
Country attitudes Æ WTB .09 .10 .13** .13**
PJ Æ WTB .20*** .24*** .47*** .32***
Age Æ PJ –.36* –.09* –.11 –.03
Age Æ WTB –.01 –.00 –.56* –.11*
Income Æ PJ .00 .01 .03 .06
Income Æ WTB .02 .05 .06* .08*
Model Fit c2 = 653.101 (p = .0), d.f. 333; RMSEA = .04; NFI = .95; SRMR = .05
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
consumers, which suggests that it could be treated as a Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011) but
true “intermarket” (i.e., global) segment. much larger than the “local cosmopolitan” segment
(27%) of Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012).
National Cosmopolitans (45%). By far, the largest seg-
ment comprises national cosmopolitans. These con- Domestically Oriented Consumers (40%). The second-
sumers are cosmopolitan but, at the same time, are largest segment consists of domestically oriented con-
strongly attached to their home country, as reflected in sumers. People in this segment score higher on national
their high national identity scores. However, consumers identity and consumer ethnocentrism and lower on cos-
in this segment are not ethnocentric, which emphasizes mopolitanism than the other two groups. In terms of size,
the importance of distinguishing between national iden- this segment is comparable to the “local” cluster (34%)
tity and consumer ethnocentrism as alternative drivers of Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011).
of home country bias for successfully targeting this seg-
ment. This segment is likely to be receptive to “buy- Cluster Profiles
domestic” campaigns and to local consumer culture
positioning of global brands (Alden, Steenkamp, and As Table 8 shows, the three clusters differ significantly
Batra 2006), but it is also open to foreign products. It is in terms of age (F(2, 813) = 9.913, p < .001). Pairwise
comparable in size to the “glocal” segment (45%) of comparisons revealed that pure cosmopolitans were the

Table 7. Study 2 Results: Comparison Criteria
R2 PJ Home R2 WTB Home R2 PJ Foreign R2 WTB Foreign d.f. ECVI AIC CAIC
Conceptual model .175 .166 .115 .238 333 1.893 764.875 1,275.272
Home Country PJ
CET set to 0 .159 .163 .119 .241 334 1.899 767.059 1,272.452
NATID set to 0 .132 .157 .110 .242 334 1.924 777.160 1,282.552
COSMO set to 0 .163 .165 .106 .237 334 1.894 765.340 1,270.732
Home WTB
CET set to 0 .177 .160 .115 .238 334 1.892 764.552 1,269.944
NATID set to 0 .178 .154 .115 .241 334 1.899 767.095 1,272.488
COSMO set to 0 .176 .165 .115 .237 334 1.889 763.089 1,268.482
Foreign PJ
CET set to 0 .178 .166 .116 .238 334 1.889 763.158 1,268.551
NATID set to 0 .157 .162 .105 .240 334 1.896 765.927 1,271.320
COSMO set to 0 .168 .165 .103 .233 334 1.896 765.904 1,271.296
Foreign WTB
CET set to 0 .175 .166 .115 .239 334 1.889 763.281 1,268.674
NATID set to 0 .175 .170 .114 .234 334 1.891 763.854 1,269.247
COSMO set to 0 .178 .164 .119 .212 334 1.909 771.156 1,276.548
youngest segment (see also Riefler, Diamantopoulos, WTB used in our research model, respondents also rated
and Siguaw 2012). Chi-square tests revealed that the (on a seven-point scale) the country images of the home
three clusters did not significantly differ in income (F(2, and foreign countries (using the five-item scale of Para-
813) = .464, p > .05), gender (c2(2) = .434, p > .05 ), or meswaran and Pisharodi [1994]), their (foreign) country
urban/rural location (c2(2) = 6.955, p > .05). However, knowledge (two items taken from Beatty and Talpade
from a within-cluster perspective, it is important to note [1994]; e.g., “I have a lot of experience with [coun-
that pure cosmopolitans have the highest proportion of try]”), and a series of consumption-related variables,
consumers living in urban locations, whereas domesti- such as their past travel behavior (“I travel to Italy:
cally oriented consumers have the largest proportion of never/very often”), their investment intentions (two
consumers living in rural locations. The results further items taken from Oberecker and Diamantopoulos
show that the Austrian sample has a larger percentage (2011; e.g., “I would like to do business with companies
of domestically oriented consumers, whereas the Sloven- from [country]”), and their work-abroad intentions (“I
ian sample has a larger percentage of national cos- [would] like to work in this [country]”).
mopolitans. This finding could underlie the (negative)
attitude of Austrians toward foreigners and immigration We found significant differences (at p < .05 or better)
(Guibernau 2007), whereas Slovenia, as a former East- between the three clusters for all these variables (Table 8).
ern Bloc country, seems to be more open, especially In line with expectations, domestically oriented con-
toward people and products from the West. sumers clearly regard their own country in a better light
than the other clusters, as reflected in the highest country
We subsequently profiled the derived segments on a image scores, the most favorable domestic PJ, and the
series of individual and consumption-related character- greatest WTB domestic products. This group is also least
istics. Specifically, in addition to the measures for PJ and likely to visit or work in a foreign country and displays

Table 8. Cluster Description
Domestically National
Pure Cosmopolitans Oriented Consumers Cosmopolitans Test Statistic
M SD M SD M SD F (2, 813) Significance
n (sample %) 120 (15%) 324 (40%) 372 (45%)

Austrian sample 59 (14%) 197 (48%) 155 (38%)
Slovenian sample 61 (15%) 127 (31%) 217 (54%)
Consumer ethnocentrism 2.72a 1.37 5.34ab 1.13 2.88b 1.08 469.683 .000
National identity 3.72ab 1.17 6.63b .63 6.55a .54 857.541 .000
Consumer cosmopolitanism 5.95a .87 4.91ab .86 6.13b .57 242.349 .000
Income (EUR, net/month) 530.89 807.01 779.74 881.85 893.75 5253.75 .464 .629
Age (years) 35.8ab 12.34 41.78b 12.93 41.07a 13.39 9.913 .000
Gender (% within cluster)
Women 59 (49.1%) 167 (51.5%) 183 (49.2%)
Men 61 (50.9%) 157 (48.5%) 189 (50.8%)
Location (% within cluster)
Urban 86 (71.7%) 188 (58.0%) 232 (62.4%)
Rural 34 (28.3%) 136 (42.0%) 140 (37.6%)
Country knowledge (foreign) 3.73a 1.63 3.26ab 1.51 3.69b 1.55 7.973 .000
Country image (home) 4.60ab 1.05 5.26a 1.06 5.17b .98 18.976 .000
Country image (foreign) 4.47a .99 4.53b 1.10 4.79ab 1.01 7.296 .001
PJ (home) 5.98ab 1.62 7.06ac 1.43 6.67bc 1.52 23.17 .000
PJ (foreign) 6.30a 1.42 6.39b 1.40 6.73ab 1.36 6.953 .001
WTB (home) 5.86ab 1.44 6.56ac .83 6.37bc .97 21.152 .000
WTB (foreign) 4.90a 1.63 4.33ab 1.70 4.98b 1.67 13.891 .000
Work intentions (foreign) 3.40a 1.65 2.98ab 1.49 3.51b 1.65 10.025 .000
Visit intentions (foreign) 4.90 1.29 4.55a 1.47 5.07a 1.29 12.673 .000
Notes: Subscript letters indicate significant differences between clusters at the .05 significance level (Bonferroni post hoc test).
the lowest level of foreign country knowledge. In con- pure and national cosmopolitans exhibit a high WTB for-
trast, both the pure cosmopolitans and national cos- eign products; in a home context, both national cos-
mopolitans are more open to “things foreign,” as mopolitans and domestically oriented consumers clearly
reflected in a greater WTB foreign products and intention prefer domestic products. We find the same patterns for
to visit or work abroad. These segments also hold a less investment and working abroad intentions.
positive home country image and evaluate domestic prod-
ucts less favorably than domestically oriented consumers.
A series of Bonferroni post hoc tests in analysis of vari- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
ance revealed that pure cosmopolitans and national cos-
mopolitans do not significantly differ from each other in
Theoretical Implications
a foreign context,2 whereas national cosmopolitans sig- Since Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) classic research, many
nificantly differ from domestically oriented consumers in studies have focused on consumer ethnocentrism as a
the home context. For example, in a foreign context, both consumer trait explaining bias in favor of domestic

products and against foreign alternatives. Because the group constructs also influence out- (in-) group behav-
impact of consumer ethnocentrism on PJ is product- and ior. Regarding national identity, Brewer (1999) states
country-specific (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004), that out-groups such as foreign countries and their
research has suggested alternative drivers for such a bias products could be viewed with indifference, sympathy,
but has not yet analyzed their joint influences on both or even admiration, as long as the in-group is not threat-
domestic and foreign PJ and WTB. In line with recent ened. Speculating on the positive link between national
calls (e.g., Josiassen 2011; Riefler and Diamantopoulos identity and PJ in the case of Italy, this may indicate that
2009) and drawing on social identity theory, this study Italy is a long-standing partner of Austria and its prod-
develops and tests a conceptual model that assesses the ucts are respected and admired. However, because we
relative importance of three sociopsychological traits as could not replicate this link in Study 2, further research
drivers of in-group and out-group bias—namely, con- on the boundary conditions of this effect is necessary,
sumer ethnocentrism (pro-in-group and anti-out-group), perhaps using perceived threat (Brewer 1999, Brown
national identity (pro-in-group), and consumer cos- 2000) as a potential moderating variable.
mopolitanism (pro-out-group)—while controlling for
other biasing influences in the form of specific country Regarding consumer cosmopolitanism, Cannon and
attitudes. Yaprak (2012, p. 28) show that “just as one’s family and
immediate social group needs, norms, and values can
Our results reveal that all three traits are important pre- take precedence over broader cultural norms, so local
dictors of consumer behavior, although the strength of norms can take precedence over cosmopolitan norms in
their impact on outcomes varies. In a home country con- situations where this seems appropriate.” Thus, though
text, and in full support of H1 and H2, national identity not ethnocentric, cosmopolitan consumers can feel posi-
outperforms consumer ethnocentrism (and consumer tively attached to their home country as long as this
cosmopolitanism) for both PJ and WTB. These findings attachment takes a critical stance (Cannon and Yaprak
highlight the importance of conceptually distinguishing 2012; Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012). For
these constructs because “attachment to the nation or cosmopolitan consumers, “negation of ethnocentrism
state [i.e., national identity] does not necessarily imply does not mean that they are not good patriots”
ethnocentrism” (Roudometof 2005, p. 122). In a for- (Roudometof 2005, p. 122). This notion is also empiri-
eign context, consumer cosmopolitanism tends to act as cally reflected in our cluster analysis results, which show
a countervailing force to ethnocentric tendencies, that the national cosmopolitan segment scores high on
although its relative impact on PJ and WTB varies from both consumer cosmopolitanism and national identity
study to study, thus offering only partial support for H3 but low on consumer ethnocentrism (see Table 8). At the
and H4. In Study 1, consumer cosmopolitanism showed same time, by definition, cosmopolitan consumers have
a stronger impact than consumer ethnocentrism on PJ (and welcome) exposure to different countries and their
(with consumer ethnocentrism having no impact at all products and therefore are likely more “informed” or
on PJ), and in Study 2, it had a stronger effect on WTB “sophisticated” than noncosmopolitans. Thus, the posi-
foreign products (with consumer ethnocentrism influ- tive link between cosmopolitanism and domestic PJ may
encing neither PJ nor WTB). Our cluster analysis, how- simply reflect a more “objective” judgment of cosmo-
ever, revealed that the Austrian sample is more ethno- politan consumers that domestic products are indeed
centric than the Slovenian sample, which is more good products.
cosmopolitan. This could be one reason why WTB is
mainly driven by consumer ethnocentrism in the case of With regard to the direct versus indirect (via PJ) impact
Austria and by consumer cosmopolitanism in the case of of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic versus for-
Slovenia. However, additional research on the relevant eign product preferences, our study advances under-
boundary conditions is necessary to fully explain these standing of this construct in several ways. Specifically,
cross-country variations. previous research has not clarified whether consumer
cosmopolitanism should have an impact on PJ (Riefler
Two particularly noteworthy findings are the observed and Diamantopoulos 2009), independent of whether
positive impacts of national identity on foreign PJ (in such judgments refer to domestic or foreign products. In
Study 1) and of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic a correlational study (n = 136 students), Riefler and
PJ (in both studies). To our knowledge, this is the first Diamantopoulos (2009) link consumer cosmopoli-
time such effects have been empirically observed and tanism to (domestic) PJ and (foreign) WTB and find a
raise the intriguing question whether “pure” in- (out-) relationship only with WTB. They conclude that con-

sumer cosmopolitanism might not influence consumers’ because extant research shows that consumers evaluate
PJ at all. In our study, we tested the impact of consumer brands labeled as foreign versus global differently
cosmopolitanism on PJ and WTB for the first time in a (Nijssen and Douglas 2011). The three segments (pure
nomological network that also considered other sources cosmopolitans, national cosmopolitans, and domesti-
of in-group and out-group bias using representative cally oriented consumers) derived from our cluster
samples from two countries. Overall, our results show analysis differ substantially from one another in terms
that consumer cosmopolitanism influences PJ in three of of both demographics and consumption-related charac-
four cases analyzed. Thus, similar to other sociopsycho- teristics and complement our SEM results. In particular,
logical traits of consumers (including the ones studied in national identity (consumer cosmopolitanism) charac-
this research), consumer cosmopolitanism does indeed terizes two groups of consumers: one that is only pro-in-
influence consumers’ evaluations of products. group (pro-out-group) and one that is both. This finding
may explain why we found a positive link from national
Another question is how consumer cosmopolitanism identity to foreign PJ and why consumer cosmopoli-
influences consumers’ WTB. While in a home country tanism also had a positive impact on domestic PJ.
setting, this relationship seems to be fully mediated
through PJ, we find different results for Study 1 and From a theoretical perspective, perhaps the most rele-
Study 2 with respect to the direct versus indirect impact vant finding is that the largest segment is that of
of consumer cosmopolitanism on WTB through PJ in a national cosmopolitans; this group has the highest aver-
foreign setting. Prior research (listed in Table 1) has not age score on cosmopolitanism (even exceeding that of
tested the mediational role of PJ on the relationship pure cosmopolitans) but also a very high score on
between consumer cosmopolitanism and WTB. Further- national identity. Regarding the latter, previous research
more, Riefler and colleagues (Riefler and Diamantopou- has shown that national identity can lead to both critical
los 2009; Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012) (as reflected in patriotism) and uncritical (in the form of
only test the impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on nationalism) support for the nation (Blank and Schmidt
consumers’ willingness to purchase foreign products in 2003). In light of their profile (see Table 8), national
general (with no indication of a specific origin), whereas cosmopolitans would appear to reflect the first scenario
Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos (2009) mainly (i.e., possessing a healthy/critical attachment to the
focus on global brands. Our results show full mediation home country). However, people feeling locally attached
through foreign PJ in the Austrian sample but only a can also develop protective tendencies toward their own
direct impact (and, thus, no mediation) in the Slovenian country (i.e., the in-group), which may explain why
sample. Therefore, similar to consumer ethnocentrism, domestically oriented consumers also score high on con-
whose impact on PJ and WTB varies from study to study sumer ethnocentrism.
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004), our findings sug-
gest that the relevant effects might be context specific. An important by-product of our study is the impact of
Future studies should further analyze the mediational country attitudes (defined as consumers’ positive, nega-
role of PJ on WTB using more stimuli countries and tive, or neutral dispositions toward a specific country)
product categories to better explain such differences. on PJ and WTB in a domestic and foreign context. We
found that country attitudes affected not only WTB but
Our cluster analysis partly confirms and further extends also PJ; thus, they are an important source of in- and
previous studies aiming to identify cross-national con- out-group bias that should at least be controlled for in
sumer segments. Whereas previous research has often further research.
segmented consumers on the basis of their global versus
local identities (e.g., Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Managerial Implications
Laroche 2011; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008,
2012; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012)—that is, To be successful in the complex and uncertain global
their belief in global (local) citizenship through the con- marketplace, managers of multinational corporations
sumption of global (local) brands (e.g., Steenkamp, and local firms need to know how to effectively address
Batra, and Alden 2003)—our study portrays them consumers to make their products and brands attractive
through three sociopsychological traits that affect their at home as well as abroad. Our results indicate that con-
treatment of in-groups (i.e., home country) versus out- sumers can be successfully grouped according to their
groups (i.e., foreign countries in general). In this respect, degree of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity,
the focus on foreign, as opposed to global, is important and consumer cosmopolitanism across markets, indicat-

ing that these variables are important to use in global found Slovenian consumers to be more cosmopolitan.
segmentation and advertising studies. In particular, These cross-country differences manifested themselves
while local managers are advised to focus on domesti- in consumers’ WTB foreign products, which was mainly
cally oriented consumers, our study reveals for the first driven (negatively) by consumer ethnocentrism in Aus-
time how pro-in-group traits of consumers can be com- tria and (positively) by consumer cosmopolitanism in
bined with pro-out-group traits at the same time, mak- Slovenia. International marketing managers should use
ing the national cosmopolitans particularly interesting this information when screening foreign markets for
for marketers promoting their products at home and their market potential and focus on markets with larger
abroad. percentages of cosmopolitan (ethnocentric) consumers,
depending on their chosen positioning (domestic versus
However, our results also indicate that managers must foreign).
handle the identified consumer segments with care. For
example, firms in the United States have long encouraged Apart from sociopsychological traits of consumers,
consumers to “buy American,” using catchy taglines managers are also advised to focus on more conven-
such as “Our country—our truck” (Bunkley 2006) or tional factors such as consumers’ attitudes toward a
“Buy from Big 3, save U.S. jobs” (Shepardson 2006). country as well as general judgments of products from a
Yet, according to a New York Times article, “urging particular country. Our results reveal that managers
consumers to buy American has never worked in any ... should focus on markets in which consumers have a
segment of the vehicle market” (Bunkley 2006). Indeed, favorable attitude toward the originating country as
our findings show that only a moderate fraction of con- well as positive judgments of products from the origi-
sumers who identify with a nation are also ethnocentric. nating country. Otherwise, they might face a competi-
For domestically oriented consumers, these types of tive disadvantage that can only gradually be changed
campaigns might well work. However, the majority of over time and would entail substantial investments in
consumers who identify with a nation are also cosmo- country brands from the governments involved (for
politan. Because “‘made at home’ campaigns may ‘back- examples of such a campaign, see Amine, Chao, and
fire’” for cosmopolitan consumers (Riefler, Diaman- Arnold 2005).
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012, p. 300), companies must be
careful in how they target national cosmopolitans.
According to social identity theory, the key to success is LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUR-
whether the communication campaign shows uncritical THER RESEARCH
support for the home country. For example, whereas
Chevrolet’s “Our county—our truck” campaign focused Given that we conducted our study in Europe, further
on clips of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, September replication in other settings and with other countries
11, and Hurricane Katrina, other, perhaps more success- (e.g., varying in terms of cultural distance and/or geo-
ful, campaigns have highlighted a country’s tradition of graphical proximity) as stimuli is necessary to generalize
producing things. For example, a long-term campaign in our findings. Such replication efforts are also necessary
Belgium used the slogan “Belgische kazen blijven ver- with respect to specific product categories or brands. In
bazen” (“Belgian cheeses continue to amaze”) to high- this context, the conceptualization of our model is on a
light the variety of Belgian cheeses and to educate con- country level. In line with previous research (Josiassen
sumers about the various types of cheeses available 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998; Oberecker and
(VLAM 2014). This type of campaign, though directed Diamantopoulos 2011), we therefore focused on overall
at buying domestic, is a good example for communica- PJ and WTB to mitigate potential confounding effects
tions targeting national cosmopolitans because it does on differences of specific product lines or brands in
not conflict with their central values (in particular, open- availability, positioning, and so forth. Further research
mindedness and variety seeking; see Riefler and Dia- could explicitly acknowledge such differences, take a
mantopoulos 2009). more fine-grained approach when specifying relevant
outcome variables, and correlate intentional measures
Another notable finding of our study is that the size of with actual behavior, such as product ownership (Josi-
the segments, especially domestically oriented con- assen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998).
sumers and national cosmopolitans, differed considera-
bly from country to country. In particular, Austrian con- Related to the preceding suggestion, another promising
sumers turned out to be rather ethnocentric, and we issue for further research pertains to differences among

the identified consumer segments in terms of their will- global versus local brands when making purchasing
ingness to pay (WTP) when buying domestic and foreign decisions.
products/brands. For example, all else being equal, are
pure cosmopolitans willing to pay more than national Finally, our findings show that apart from consumer
cosmopolitans for foreign brands? If so, does this apply ethnocentrism, which is an established construct in the
to all kinds of brands or only, say, luxury brands? Simi- literature, national identity and consumer cosmopoli-
larly, do domestically oriented consumers have a higher tanism are indeed promising constructs for explaining
WTP for domestic products/brands than the other two behavior in both home and foreign country settings.
groups? Although recent research has linked country However, our study does not investigate the antecedents
images to WTP (e.g., Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopou- of these constructs that could help explain why such dif-
los, and Odenkotte 2012), to our best knowledge, the ferences in their effects occur. The conceptual work of
same is not the case for the sociopsychological traits Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009) and Dinnie (2002)
examined in our study. could serve as a starting point for identifying such
antecedents and their potential interactions.
A third promising direction for further research involves
linking the three sociopsychological traits to perceptions
of brand globalness (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and NOTES
Ronkainen 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003)
and brand localness (e.g., Özsomer 2012; Xie, Batra, 1. We also estimated models with additional controls
and Peng 2015) as well as to different consumer culture such as education and interest in the country. How-
positioning strategies (e.g., global, local, glocal, foreign; ever, none of these variables had a significant impact
e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Strizhakova on PJ and WTB (except interest in Italy in Study 2).
and Coulter 2015; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson Moreover, the rest of the parameters remained stable
2012). To the extent that positioning brand globalness/ in all the cases analyzed. Therefore, we selected age
localness and/or receptivity to various strategies is found and income only as control variables because they
to be dependent on distinct consumer characteristics, a had the most significant impact on outcomes in our
more holistic picture of consumers’ preference for global model. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggest-
versus local brands should emerge. Moreover, such linking these additional analyses to us.
ages should facilitate better targeting to distinct con-
sumer groups that vary in their proclivity to opt for 2. Except for country image and foreign PJ.

Appendix. Construct Measurement
Sociopsychological Traits
Austrian Sample Slovenian Sample

(Study 1) (Study 2)
CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value
CET1 [Country] people should not buy foreign products, this hurts domestic business and causes
unemployment. .89 .64 .86 — .90 .66 .87 —
CET2 It is not right to purchase foreign products, because this puts [country] people out of jobs. .76 22.29 .81 19.46
CET3 A real [citizen] should always buy domestic products. .89 27.25 .86 24.97
CET4 I always prefer domestic products over foreign ones. .53 10.69 .58 12.27
CET5 We should purchase products manufactured in [country], instead of letting other countries
get rich off us. .87 29.58 .90 26.08
National Identity
NAT1 I see myself as [citizenship]. .93 .77 .76 — .91 .71 .76 —
NAT2 I am glad that I am [citizenship]. .91 20.08 .88 10.44
NAT3 I feel strong ties with [country]. .92 20.33 .83 10.91
NAT4 Being [citizenship] is important to me. .92 20.39 .89 10.74
Open-mindedness .78 .54 .81 — .70 .50 .60 —
Diversity appreciation .57 10.39 .61 6.75
Consumption transcending borders .81 12.14 .78 6.84
Model Fit c2 = 180.77, c2 = 133.40,
d.f. = 51; RMSEA = .08; d.f. = 51; RMSEA = .05;
NNFI = .96; CFI = .97 NNFI = .98; CFI = .98

Appendix. Continued
Control and Outcome Variables

Domestic (Austrian) Foreign (Italian)
Products Products (Study 1)
Construct Items CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value
Country Attitudes

CA1 I like [country]. .93 .72 .69 — .96 .82 .89 —
CA2 “Good” attitude toward [country]. .93 7.22 .95 23.75
CA3 “Pleasant” attitude toward [country]. .94 6.80 .98 23.77
CA4 “Advantageous” attitude toward [country]. .87 6.50 .88 19.24
CA5 “Friendly” attitude toward [country]. .78 6.10 .82 13.43
PJ
PJ1 Innovativeness .82 .54 .66 — .81 .51 .69 —
PJ2 Design .71 10.96 .66 9.97
PJ3 Prestige .78 7.56 .82 12.83
PJ4 Workmanship .79 7.55 .68 13.04
WTB
PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]. .82 .61 .85 — .90 .76 .92 —
PI2 I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need products. .79 10.19 .87 24.24
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country]. .71 11.50 .81 19.73
Model Fit c2 = 210.62, = 133.18,
c2
d.f. = 51, p = .00; d.f. = 51, p = .00;
RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04;
NNFI = .99; CFI = .99 NNFI = .99; CFI = .99
Appendix. Continued
Domestic (Slovenian) Foreign (Italian)
Products Products (Study 2)
Construct Items CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value
Country Attitudes
CA1 I like [country]. .91 .68 .73 — .95 .80 .87 —
CA2 “Good” attitude toward [country]. .90 10.92 .95 35.85
CA3 “Pleasant” attitude toward [country]. .93 11.61 .95 34.48
CA4 “Advantageous” attitude toward [country]. .73 10.57 .87 26.09
CA5 “Friendly” attitude toward [country]. .80 9.11 .84 21.02
PJ
PJ1 Innovativeness .84 .57 .74 — .79 .50 .66 —
PJ2 Design .79 13.46 .74 10.69
PJ3 Prestige .80 15.22 .79 11.25
PJ4 Workmanship .70 11.49 .57 110.78
WTB
PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]. .85 .66 .86 — .91 .77 .89 —
PI2 I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need products. .89 15.76 .93 27.70
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country]. .66 13.63 .82 21.91
Model Fit c2 = 114.88, d.f. = 51, = 105.33, d.f. = 51,
c2
p = .00; RMSEA = .04; p = .00; RMSEA = .04;
SRMR = .05; NNFI = .99; SRMR = .04; NNFI = .99;
CFI = .99 CFI = .99
Notes: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, l = standardized indicator loadings.

REFERENCES Test with Representative Data,” Political Psychology, 24 (2),
289–312.
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levin-
son, and R. N. Sanford (1950), The Authoritarian Person- Brewer, Marilynn B. (1979), “In-Group Bias in the Minimal
ality. New York: Harper & Row. Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis,”
Psychological Bulletin, 86 (2), 307–324.
Ajzen, Icek (2001), “Nature and Operation of Attitudes,”
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58. ——— (1999), “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or
Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues, 55 (3), 429–44.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev
Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in ——— and Samuel L. Gaertner (2003), “Toward Reduction of
Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Con- Prejudice: Intergroup Contact and Social Categorization,” in
sumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Pro-
cesses, Rupert Brown and Samuel L. Gaertner, eds. Malden,
———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Consumer Attitudes MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 451–72.
Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents
and Consequences,” International Journal of Research in Brown, Rupert (2000), “Social Identity Theory: Past Achieve-
Marketing, 23 (September), 227–39. ments, Current Problems and Future Challenges,” European
Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (6), 745–78.
Amine, Lyn S., Mike C.H. Chao, and Mark J. Arnold (2005),
“Executive Insights: Exploring the Practical Effects of Coun- Bunkley, Nick (2006), “Aiming to Be the Truck of Patriots,”
try of Origin, Animosity and Price-Quality Issues: Two Case The New York Times, September 26, 2006, (accessed Febru-
Studies of Taiwan and Acer in China,” Journal of Inter- ary 25, 2015), [available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/
national Marketing, 13 (2), 114–50. 09/26/business/media/26adco.html].
Bagozzi, Richard P., Mahesh Gopinath, and Prashanth U. Nyer Cannon, Hugh M. and Attila Yaprak (2002), “Will the Real-
(1999), “The Role of Emotions in Marketing,” Journal of the World Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of Cosmo-
Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184–206. politan Consumer Behavior,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 10 (4), 30–52.
——— and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci- ——— and ——— (2012), “Cosmopolitanism as a Journey:
ence, 16 (1), 74–94. The Construct and Dynamics of Change,” in Consumer Cos-
mopolitanism in the Age of Globalization, Melvin Prince, ed.
Balabanis, George and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2004), New York: Business Expert Press, 3–28.
“Domestic Country Bias, Country-of-Origin Effects, and
Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Multidimensional Unfolding Chang, Sea J., Arjen Witteloostuijn, and Lorraine Eden (2010),
Approach,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, “Common Method Variance in International Business
32 (1), 80–95. Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2),
178–84.
Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade (1994), “Adolescent Influ-
ences in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Exten- Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos
sion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 332–41. (2009), “Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism, and
Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and
Beck, Ulrich (2004), “Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinc- Outcomes,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 116–
tion Between Cosmopolitanism in Philosophy and the Social 46.
Sciences,” Global Networks, 4 (2), 131–54.
———, Nicolas Papadopoulos, and Michel Laroche (2011),
Bizumic, Boris, John Duckitt, Dragan Popadic, Vincent Dru, “Identity, Demographics, and Consumer Behaviors,” Inter-
and Stephen Krauss (2009), “A Cross-Cultural Investigation national Marketing Review, 28 (3), 244–66.
into a Reconceptualization of Ethnocentrism,” European
Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (6), 871–99. Craig, C.S. and Susan P. Douglas (2005), International Market-
ing Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Blank, Thomas (2003), “Determinants of National Identity in
East and West Germany: An Empirical Comparison of Theories Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe (1960), “A New Scale
on the Significance of Authoritarianism, Anomie, and General of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Jour-
Self-Esteem,” Political Psychology, 24 (2), 259–88. nal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (August), 349–54.
——— and Peter Schmidt (2003), “National Identity in a DeVellis, Robert F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and
United Germany: Nationalism or Patriotism? An Empirical Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Petra Riefler, and Barbara Egger Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.
(2007), “Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Scale Development New York: John Wiley & Sons.
and Validation,” in Flexible Marketing in an Unpredictable
World: Proceedings of the 36th EMAC Annual Conference Hill, Jason D. (1998), “Creating the Self: Towards a Cosmopol-
(CD-Rom), May 22–25, Reykjavik. itan Identity,” doctoral dissertation, Department of Philoso-
phy, Purdue University.
——— and Judy A. Siguaw (2000), Introducing LISREL. Lon-
don: Sage Publications. Hinkin, Timothy R. (1995), “A Review of Scale Development
Practices in the Study of Organizations,” Journal of Manage-
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka A. ment, 21 (5), 967–88.
Ronkainen (2008), “Cognitive and Affective Reactions of U.S.
Consumers to Global Brands,” Journal of International Mar- Hogg, Michael A. (2006), “Social Identity Theory,” in Contem-
keting, 16 (4), 113–35. porary Social Psychological Theories, Peter J. Burke, ed. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press, 111–36.
Dinnie, Keith (2002), “Implications of National Identity for
Marketing Strategy,” Marketing Review, 2 (3), 285–300. Huddleston, Patricia, Linda K. Good, and Leslie Stoel (2001),
“Consumer Ethnocentrism, Product Necessity and Polish
Doosje, Bertjan, Naomi Ellemers, and Russell Spears (1995), Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality,” International Journal of
“Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group Sta- Retail & Distribution Management, 29 (5), 236–46.
tus and Identification,” Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 31 (5), 410–36. Josiassen, Alexander (2011), “Consumer Disidentification and
Its Effects on Domestic Product Purchases: An Empirical
Dreher, Axel, Noel Gaston, and Pim Martens (2008), Measuring Investigation in the Netherlands,” Journal of Marketing, 75
(March), 124–40.
Globalisation: Gauging Its Consequences. New York: Springer.
Keillor, Bruce D. and G.T.M. Hult (1999), “A Five-Country
Duckitt, John and Thobi Mphuthing (1998), “Group Identifi-
Study of National Identity. Implications for International
ication and Intergroup Attitudes: A Longitudinal Analysis in
Marketing Research and Practice,” International Marketing
South Africa,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Review, 16 (1), 65–82.
74 (1), 80–85.
———, ———, Robert C. Erffmeyer, and Emin Babakus
Eurostat (2014), Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook. Luxem-
(1996), “NATID: The Development and Application of a
bourg: European Union.
National Identity Measure for Use in International Market-
ing,” Journal of International Marketing, 4 (2), 57–73.
Feather, Norman T. (1981), “National Sentiment in a Newly
Independent Nation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Kim, Soyoung and Dawn T. Pysarchik (2000), “Predicting Pur-
chology, 40 (6), 1017–28. chase Intentions for Uni-National and Bi-National Products,”
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
Featherstone, Mike (2002), Global Culture: Nationalism, Glob- 28 (6), 280–91.
alization, and Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Klein, Jill G., Richard Ettenson, and Balaji C. Krishnan (2006),
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Inten- “Extending the Construct of Consumer Ethnocentrism: When
tion, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Foreign Products Are Preferred,” International Marketing
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Review, 23 (3), 304–321.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equa- ———, ———, and Marlene D. Morris (1998), “The Animos-
tion Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement ity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in
Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39– the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Marketing, 62
50. (January), 89–100.
Guibernau, Montserrat (2007), The Identity of Nations. Cam- Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, and
bridge, UK: Polity Press. Katharina Odenkotte (2012), “Are Consumers Really Willing
to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolp E. Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to Pay,” Journal of
Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Per- International Marketing, 20 (1), 19–41.
spective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Levine, Robert A. and Donald T. Campbell (1972), Ethnocen-
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in a World trism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group
Culture,” Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 237–51. Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Levy, Orly, Schon Beechler, Sully Taylor, and Nakiye A. Boyacig- Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
iller (2007), “What We Talk About When We Talk About Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in
‘Global Mindset’: Managerial Cognition in Multinational Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Corporations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38 Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(2), 231–58. (5), 879–903.
Lindell, Michael K. and David J. Whitney (2001), “Accounting Prince, Melvin (2012), Consumer Cosmopolitanism in the Age
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research of Globalization. New York: Business Expert Press.
Designs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–21.
Punj, Girish and David W. Stewart (1983), “Cluster Analysis in
Mackie, Diane M. and Eliot R. Smith (1998), “Intergroup Rela- Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Applica-
tions: Insights from a Theoretically Integrative Approach,” tions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 134–48.
Psychological Review, 105 (4), 499–529.
Putrevu, Sanjay and Kenneth R. Lord (1994), “Comparative
MacQueen, James B. (1967), “Some Methods for Classification and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects Under
and Analysis of Multivariate Observations,” in Proceedings of Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,” Journal of
the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Advertising, 23 (2), 77–90.
Probability, L.A. Le Cam and J. Newman, eds. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 281–97. Reynolds, Nina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1998), “The
Effect of Pretest Method on Error Detection Rates: Experi-
Mlicki, Pawel P. and Naomi Ellemers (1996), “Being Different mental Evidence,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (5/6),
or Being Better? National Stereotypes and Identifications of 480–98.
Polish and Dutch Students,” European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 26 (1), 97–114. Riefler, Petra and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009), “Con-
sumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and Replication of the
Netemeyer, Richard G., Scot Burton, and Donald R. Lichten- CYMYC Scale,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 407–419.
stein (1995), “Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and
Relevance to Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer ———, ———, and Judy A. Siguaw (2012), “Cosmopolitan
Research, 21 (4), 612–26. Consumers as Target Group for Segmentation,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 43 (3), 285–305.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2011), “Consumer
World-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning Roth, Katharina P. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009),
in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Ver- “Advancing the Country Image Construct,” Journal of Busi-
sus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, ness Research, 62 (7), 726–40.
19 (3), 113–33.
Roth, Martin S. and Jean B. Romeo (1992), “Matching Product
Oberecker, Eva M. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2011), Category and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for
“Consumers’ Emotional Bonds with Foreign Countries: Does Managing Country-of-Origin Effects,” Journal of Inter-
Consumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Journal of national Business Studies, 23 (3), 477–97.
International Marketing, 19 (2), 45–72.
Roudometof, Victor (2005), “Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism
Okechuku, Chike and Vincent Onyemah (1999), “Nigerian and Glocalization,” Current Sociology, 53 (1), 113–35.
Consumer Attitudes Toward Foreign and Domestic Prod-
ucts,” Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (3), 611– Rybina, Liza, James Reardon, and Janet Humphrey (2010),
22. “Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism and
Purchase Behavior in Kazakhstan,” Organizations & Markets
Özsomer, Ayşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and in Emerging Economies, 1 (2), 92–107.
Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness
and Local Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 Schmitt, Bernd H., Yigang Pan, and Nader T. Tavassoli (1994),
(2), 72–95. “Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic
Differences Between Chinese and English,” Journal of Con-
Pappu, Ravi, Pascale G. Quester, and Ray W. Cooksey (2007), sumer Research, 21 (3), 419–31.
“Country Image and Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Rela-
tionship and Implications for International Marketing,” Jour- Shankarmahesh, Mahesh N. (2006), “Consumer Ethnocen-
nal of International Business Studies, 38 (5), 726–45. trism: An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents and Conse-
quences,” International Marketing Review, 23 (2), 146–72.
Parameswaran, Ravi and R.M. Pisharodi (1994), “Facets of
Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment,” Journal Sharma, Piyush (2011), “Country of Origin Effects in Devel-
of Advertising, 23 (1), 43–61. oped and Emerging Markets: Exploring the Contrasting Roles

of Materialism and Value Consciousness,” Journal of Inter- ——— (1978), “Social Categorization, Social Identity and
national Business Studies, 42 (2), 285–306. Social Comparison,” in Differentiation Between Social
Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Rela-
Sharma, Subhash, Terence A. Shimp, and Jeongshin Shin tions, Henri Tajfel, ed. London: Academic Press, 61–76.
(1995), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and
Moderators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, ——— and John C. Turner (1986), “The Social Identity Theory
23 (1), 26–37. of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Rela-
tions, S. Worchel and W. Austin, eds. Chicago: Nelson Hall,
Shepardson, David (2006), “Ford Gives Money to Auto 7–24.
Retirees’ Campaign; ‘What You Drive, Drives America,’ Ads
Say,” Detroit News, May 12, 2006. ——— and ——— (2004), “The Social Identity Theory of Inter-
group Behavior,” in Political Psychology: Key Readings, J.T.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Eth- Jost, ed. New York: Psychology Press, 276–93.
nocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89. Thelen, Shawn T. and Earl D. Honeycutt (2004), “Assessing
National Identity in Russia Between Generations Using the
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2013), Statistical National Identity Scale,” Journal of International Marketing,
Yearbook. Ljubljana: Republic of Slovenia. 12 (2), 58–81.
Statistics Austria (2013), Facts & Figures. Vienna: Statistics Austria. Thompson, Craig J. and Siok K. Tambyah (1999), “Trying to Be
Cosmopolitan,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 214–
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. 41.
Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates
Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 Turner, John C. (1999), “Some Current Issues in Research on
(1), 53–65. Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories,” in Social
Identity, Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje,
eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 6–34.
——— and Hans Baumgartner (1998), “Assessing Measure-
ment Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research,”
——— (2010), “Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 78–90.
Group,” in Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Henri
Tajfel, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15–40.
———, Frenkel Ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), “A
Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National
United Nations (2014), World Urbanization Prospects: The
Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal
2014 Revision, Highlights. New York: Department of Eco-
of Marketing, 63 (April), 55–69.
nomic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Strizhakova, Yuliya and Robin A. Coulter (2015), “Drivers of
Verlegh, Peeter W.J. (2007), “Home Country Bias in Product
Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Evaluation: The Complementary Roles of Economic and
Approach,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 1–22. Socio-Psychological Motives,” Journal of International Busi-
ness Studies, 38 (3), 361–73.
———, ———, and Linda L. Price (2008), “Branded Products
as a Passport to Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Devel- Vida, Irena and James Reardon (2008), “Domestic Consump-
oped and Developing Countries,” Journal of International tion: Rational, Affective or Normative Choice?” Journal of
Marketing, 16 (4), 57–85. Consumer Marketing, 25 (1), 34–44.
———, ———, and ——— (2012), “The Young Adult Cohort VLAM (2014), “Kazen Van Bij Ons,” (accessed January 20,
in Emerging Markets: Assessing Their Glocal Cultural Identity 2014), [available at http://www.belgischekazen.be/BENL/
in a Global Marketplace,” International Journal of Research site/dl-overview.aspx?vCat=9&page=1].
in Marketing, 29 (1), 43–54.
Wang, Cheng L. and Zhen X. Chen (2004), “Consumer Ethno-
Sumner, W.G. (1906), Folkways: The Sociological Importance centrism and Willingness to Buy Domestic Products in a
of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York: Developing Country Setting: Testing Moderating Effects,”
Ginn & Co. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21 (6), 391–400.
Supphellen, Magne and Terri L. Rittenburg (2001), “Consumer Watson, John J. and Katrina Wright (2000), “Consumer Ethno-
Ethnocentrism: When Foreign Products Are Better,” Psy- centrism and Attitude Toward Domestic and Foreign Prod-
chology & Marketing, 18 (9), 907–927. ucts,” European Journal of Marketing, 34 (9/10), 1149–66.
Tajfel, Henri (1974), “Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior,” Westjohn, Stanford A., Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson
Social Science Information, 13 (2), 65–93. (2012), “Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer Cul-

ture Positioning: A Personality and Collective Identity Per- Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended
spective,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 58–73. Model of Preference-Formation Between Global and Local
Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust and
Wetherell, Margareth (2010), “Cross-Cultural Studies of Mini- Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.
mal Groups: Implications for the Social Identity Theory of
Intergroup Relations,” in Social Identity and Intergroup Rela- Zhou, Nan and Russel W. Belk (2004), “Chinese Consumer
tions, Henri Tajfel, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Readings of Global and Local Advertising Appeals,” Journal
Press, 207–240. of Advertising, 33 (3), 63–76.

Copyright of Journal of International Marketing is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Consumer Ethnocentrism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Ethnocentrism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Ethnocentrism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National

Identity, and Consumer

D judgments and preferences for domestic products

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 25

26 Journal of International Marketing

In the next sections, we provide the conceptual back- Consumer Ethnocentrism

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 27

28 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 29

Construct Impact on… Signa Examples from the Literature

aEmpirical relationships found (but not necessarily hypothesized).

30 Journal of International Marketing

Notes: Dotted lines represent control paths or previously established relationships.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 31

32 Journal of International Marketing

Table 2. Demographic Profiles of Samples

Austrian Sample (Study 1) Slovenian Sample (Study 2)

aSource: Statistics Austria 2013.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 33

34 Journal of International Marketing

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, AVEs, and Correlations Among Constructs

Study 1: Austrian Sample (N = 411)

Study 2: Slovenian Sample (N = 405)

*p < .05 or better.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 35

36 Journal of International Marketing

Domestic (Austrian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 37

haps somewhat surprising, this finding is fully in line STUDY 2

38 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 39

Domestic ( Slovenian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

40 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 41

n (sample %) 120 (15%) 324 (40%) 372 (45%)

42 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 43

44 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 45

46 Journal of International Marketing

Austrian Sample Slovenian Sample

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 47

Control and Outcome Variables

48 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 49

50 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 51

52 Journal of International Marketing

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 53

54 Journal of International Marketing

You might also like