Cultural Differences in PDF
Cultural Differences in PDF
Cultural Differences in PDF
www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm
Cultural
Cultural differences in, and differences
influences on, consumers
propensity to adopt innovations
173
Sangeeta Singh
Department of Marketing, Norwegian School of Management, Received April 2004
Sandvika, Norway Revised February 2005
Accepted March 2005
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between national culture and
adoption of new products, ideas, or behaviour to suggest a framework for distinguishing between
innovative and imitative behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach The four dimensions propounded by Hofstede are used to
distinguish national cultures for developing hypotheses pertaining to patterns of adoption of new
products, namely innovative and imitative behaviour of consumers and the sources of influence that
instigate them into such behaviours.
Findings Results from the study provide support for some of the hypothesised effects which
suggest that indeed, certain dimensions of culture are a key factor in determining whether or not
consumers will display a propensity to innovate. Specifically, it was found that cultures characterised
by small power distance, weak uncertainty avoidance and masculinity will demonstrate
innovativeness. The findings also indicate that consumers coming from different national cultures
are going to vary in their susceptibility to normative influences and interpersonal communications.
Consumers coming from a large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance and/or feminine
cultures are going to be convinced into adopting new products through normative influences while
those from more collectivistic cultures are more likely to be swayed by interpersonal communications.
Originality/value These results offer possibilities of influencing consumers into adopting new
products by using different methods that are dependent on the national culture.
Keywords National cultures, Innovation, Interpersonal communications, Behaviour
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The unification of the European market not only presents new market opportunities for
businesses marketing consumer goods but also prompts them into rethinking the way
they have been marketing their wares to consumers in the past. Champions of the
globalisation phenomenon would advice treating this integrated market as one in
order to derive economies of scale (based on the underlying assumptions of Levitt, 1983)
whereas supporters of the other school of thought, localisation or customisation
(for more detailed arguments on this, refer to Douglas and Wind, 1987), would insist on
the formulation of unique strategies for each of the different European markets. Which
one of the two approaches would be more successful would depend on how
homogeneous or heterogeneous the integrated European market turns out to be. International Marketing Review
Vol. 23 No. 2, 2006
pp. 173-191
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The author would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Norwegian Research Council, 0265-1335
through a research grant, in making this study possible. DOI 10.1108/02651330610660074
IMR In addition to opening up new avenues for multinationals to offer their products and
23,2 services, this political and economic merger of nations provides novel methods of doing
business that were not feasible in the recent past. The new ways of bringing goods and
services to the consumers would in turn require behaviour changes on the part of the
consumers. Consequently, international marketers would be, nay should be, extremely
interested in consumers willingness to accept or reject new products and ideas and the
174 factors which determine this behaviour.
The adoption of new products and ideas in markets (and societies) has received
considerable attention in the marketing literature, which has led to discovering the
characteristics of consumer innovators and the behavioural construct of consumer
innovativeness. Researchers have acknowledged that consumer innovativeness is
an integral and central construct of the theory of the diffusion of innovations
(Midgley and Dowling, 1978, p. 233) and several studies of consumer behaviour have
engaged in its examination (Foxall, 1988; Green and Langeard, 1975; Hirschman, 1980).
The construct is also of significant importance to practitioners as more and more
companies rely on new product success for their own profitability and survival in a
fiercely competitive environment. Indeed, many companies make it a part of their
mission statement and company policy to insure sustained growth. Nike simply states
its mission To bring inspiration and innovation (emphasis added by author) to every
athlete in the world, athlete being defined by its co-founder, Bill Bowerman, as anyone
who has a body. In 2002, 44 per cent of Gillettes sales came from products introduced
in the previous five years, the ninth consecutive year that more than 40 per cent of the
sales were contributed by new products (www.gillette.com). Both these companies, and
several others, perceive constant innovation as a tool for securing market share in the
international arena and innovative products a means of expanding into new markets.
Clearly, they see a direct link between the acceptance of new products and expansion in
international markets.
The objective of this paper is to present a framework for examining patterns of
consumers adoption of new products across nations, where the moderating role of
culture is used to propose the expected patterns of adoption, namely innovative and
imitative behaviour, and consumers response to different forms of influences about
new products and ideas. It is critical that an international marketer understand the
means of communicating to and influencing its customers-cultural differences in
the markets determine which type of communication is going to be more effective. The
proposed patterns of adoption and the reaction to the various modes of influences are
then empirically tested with the help of a survey conducted in two European countries,
France and Germany, characterised by different national cultures.
France and Germany were chosen for the following major reasons. They have
similar populations that enjoy equivalent standards of living and are at a comparable
stage of economic development. However, they have been shown to be culturally very
different (Hofstede, 1980). The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that consumers
from seemingly alike countries could exhibit disparate behaviours and in order to
attribute this variance to culture, we had to select countries that were similar on other
aspects. Another related point of this study is to highlight the mistake that marketers
could possibly make by assuming consumers from seemingly similar countries to
respond in an akin manner. The European Union may be politically and economically
entwined but there still remain marked differences in the countries that constitute its
eclectic personality. There were several western European country pairs that could Cultural
have been chosen but the availability of native language speakers from the European differences
Union countries who could help with the data collection played a role in the final
choice. Parallel arguments for selection of countries have been provided by previous
researchers (Whitelock and Rey, 1998).
Much of the research in marketing concerned with adoption of innovations has been
centred around identifying personality traits and behaviour patterns that may be
linked with innovative behaviour or early adoption of a product but not much has been
said or discussed about other categories of adopters (with the exception of Ram and
Jung, 1994). This oversight has been partly due to measurement difficulties associated
with identifying the different adopter categories, which requires one to employ a
longitudinal study, whereas, most of consumer research on innovation adoption has
been cross-sectional in nature.
Since, diffusion theory has traditionally been defined as a theory of communication
(Rogers, 1983) and described as the process by which an innovation is communicated
among the members of a social system, certain researchers have described innovators
not only in terms of their relative time of adoption but also in terms of how the
individual is influenced into adopting the innovation. Mahajan et al. (1990) point out
members in a society as having different reliance on mass media or other interpersonal
communication channels when seeking information and that these communications are
important influences in determining the speed with which an innovation will be
adopted (Tellefsen and Takada, 1999).
Adopters other than the innovators are influenced in their adoption of new products
and ideas by the pressures in the social system that may take the form of interpersonal
communications and observations, therefore, these influences are coming from sources
external to the individual. People adopting due to external influences have been
distinguished from innovators, who are influenced into adopting because of their
internal predispositions, and called imitators (Bass, 1969; Gatignon et al., 1989;
Mahajan et al., 1990).
A suggestion of categorising the adopters into two groups of innovators and
imitators was first made by Bass (1969) where imitators consist of adopter groups (2)
through (5) mentioned earlier. These two groups were distinguished from one another
on the basis of whether or not they were influenced by others in their decision to adopt
IMR the product. Thus, innovators were those who were not influenced in the timing of their
23,2 purchase of the innovation by other members of the social system while imitators were
influenced in the timing of adoption by the pressures in the social system.
Gatignon et al. (1989) refer to these as the two parameters characterizing the diffusion
process and call them the propensity to innovate and propensity to imitate. This
classification is in accordance with the conceptualization of Midgley and Dowling (1978)
176 where the adoption of innovation is seen as a predisposition rather than as a personality
trait inherent in the consumer. This paper employs these two propensities to
differentiate between consumer adopter categories of a new product or idea.
Power distance
Power distance in a given society is an indication of how it deals with the fact that
people are unequal in their physical and intellectual capacities. Cultures with large
power distance tend to be hierarchical while those with small power distance tend to
value equality where knowledge and respect are perceived as sources of power. The
dimension of power distance has been found to be inversely related with individualism,
that is, low power distance cultures tend to be highly individualistic while large power
distance cultures collectivistic. Therefore, based on our earlier argumentation for the
dimension of individualism and collectivism, we put forth that:
H5. Consumers in smaller power distance cultures will display a higher
propensity to innovate than those in larger power distance cultures.
H6. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will display a higher propensity
to imitate than those in smaller power distance cultures.
IMR H7. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will be more susceptible to
normative influences than those in smaller power distance cultures.
23,2
H8. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will display a higher propensity
to be influenced by interpersonal communications than those in smaller
power distance cultures.
178 Uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is how a society deals with the fact that time runs only one way
and that we have to live with uncertainty because the future is unknown and always
will be. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures accept this uncertainty and tend to take
each day as it comes, taking risks rather easily, and being more tolerant of behaviour
and opinions different from their own because they do not feel threatened by them.
Since, consumer innovativeness involves a certain degree of risk taking, it can be
expected that:
H9. Consumers in weaker uncertainty avoidance cultures will display a higher
propensity to innovate than those in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures try to overcome the uncertainty associated with
the unknown future with institutions like religion and its people tend to have a higher
level of anxiety because of the high level of uncertainty they associate with the future.
These cultures are highly intolerant of ambiguity as a result of which, they tend to be
distrustful of new ideas and stick to historically tested patterns of behaviour. As a
consequence, consumers in strong uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to wait for
others to try out a new product or idea and base their behaviour on the experiences of
others. Therefore:
H10. Consumers in strong uncertainty avoidance cultures will display a higher
propensity to imitate than those in less strong uncertainty avoidance cultures.
In order to minimise the anxiety associated with new behaviour and purchases,
individuals from strong uncertainty avoidance cultures would tend to follow tested
patterns of behaviour recommended by others. Subsequently, they will be more
concerned with how others expect them to behave and will be more eager to gather
information from those around them. So we propose that:
H11. Consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures will be more
susceptible to normative influences than those in less strong uncertainty
avoidance cultures.
H12. Consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures are going to display a
higher propensity to be influenced by interpersonal communications than that
in less strong uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Methodology
Data collection
Data were collected by a phone survey in France and Germany of 152 and 151
respondents, respectively. Because of the primary researcher and the assistants based
in a country other than France and Germany, and the limited resources available for
the data collection, an in-person survey was not deemed feasible. Response rates from
mail surveys have been declining from its traditional 20 per cent (Baruch, 1999).
Not only low response rates challenge the validity of the results from mail surveys but
also require considerable use of time and effort on the part of the researcher which is
not often suitably rewarded (Griffis et al., 2003). The final questionnaire was short
enough and did not require the respondents to be exposed to any visual stimuli, which
was conducive to a phone survey. Hence, a phone survey appeared to be the most
viable solution under the given circumstances.
The respondents in France were randomly selected from the Paris phone directory
while those in Germany from the Munich phone directory. A total of 429 people were
reached by phone in Paris out of which 152 agreed to respond to the questionnaire. A total
of 941 residents of Munich were reached, 151 of which agreed to participate in the survey.
One of the major problems with a telephone survey is the refusal to participate. In an
examination of 182 studies, the median refusal rate for telephone interviewing was
found to be 28 per cent (Wiseman and McDonald, 1978). The refusal rate in both of our
samples has been quite high, almost 65 per cent in the case of the French sample and 84
per cent in that of the German one. While adding to the costs of the data collection, refusal
rates also bias the sample results but not much can be done about it, as there is little
possibility of comparing refusers with non-refusers (Streubbe et al., 1986).
IMR We can only make guesses as to why almost twice as many people needed to be
23,2 contacted in Munich than in Paris in order to achieve the same sample size: the data
collectors had remarked that the people rung up in Paris were extremely curious about
the survey and were quite taken by the fact that they were being contacted from
outside of France for it. No such reaction was noted in the case of the Germans.
180 Measures
The questionnaire was developed using three stages. First, it was developed in English
by the principal researcher to be translated into French and German by native
speakers. The French and German versions of the questionnaires were then
back-translated into English by a different French and German speaker.
The back-translated version of the questionnaire was compared with the original
English questionnaire to pin down any changes in the meaning of the questions that
might have occurred as a result of translation and the few discrepancies in the
questions were resolved after discussing with the translators. The questionnaire was
pre-tested in both the languages, using a convenience sample of friends of the data
collectors, and further ambiguities in the wording that hampered understanding or
affected the responses were amended.
Consumer innovativeness was operationalised using the consumer-specific
exploratory acquisition of products (EAP) scale developed by Baumgartner and
Steenkamp (1996) which is designed to measure the tendency to seek sensory
stimulation in product purchase through innovative product choices and variation in
purchases. Subjects respond to ten items on a five-point scale, ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree for each of the items and the EAP is the sum of the
individual responses. The internal psychometric properties and the actual
manifestations of innovative behaviour, as measured by this scale, have been
extensively validated by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996). Even though some of the
items of the scale relate to the consumption of specific products, this scale gave
comparable results across product categories, thus ascertaining its validity (Bearden
and Netermeyer, 1999). A shortened version of the EAP with five of the highest-loading
items was used successfully by Steenkamp et al. (1999) in a cross-national investigation
of antecedents of consumer innovativeness. The scale that we used in our study is
presented in Appendix 1.
Consumers susceptibility to interpersonal influence was measured using Bearden
et al.s (1989) scale. This 12-item scale is designed to capture both normative and
informational influences, measured on a seven-point rating scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. In the original study, the coefficient as for the normative and
informational influences were reported to be 0.88 and 0.82 (n 220), respectively. Two
external judgmental rating procedures supported the ability of the scale to explain
susceptibility to interpersonal influences, thus confirming its validity. The scale was
further examined and validated in a follow-up study by the same authors (Bearden et al.,
1990) and has consistently demonstrated to be reliable and valid (Schroeder, 1996). It has
also been used in a variety of settings: DRozario and Choudhury (2000) used it to
compare the differences in assimilation of various ethnic groups in the United States,
while Kropp et al. (1999) examined the smokers and beer drinkers on this dimension.
Diffusion of any product in a given society is very much dependent on both
normative as well as interpersonal influences, therefore, the scale developed by
Bearden et al. (1989) with its two dimensions was deemed appropriate for our purposes. Cultural
However, we modified this scale to be measured on a five-point scale in order to match differences
the measures of consumer innovativeness and information acquisition. It was also felt
that it would be less complicated for respondents to visualise a five-point scale as
compared to a seven-point scale because the questionnaire was going to be conducted
on the phone. The scale is presented in Appendix 2. In addition, certain measures of
the respondents socio-demographic variables like age, gender, income, and education 181
were also taken.
France Germany
Dependent variable n 152 n 151
Individualism/collectivism 71 67
Power distance 68 35
Uncertainty avoidance 86 65
Masculinity/femininity 43 66 Table IV.
Scores on cultural
Source: Hofstede (1983) dimensions
IMR It was hypothesized that individuals belonging to more masculine cultures would
23,2 demonstrate a higher level of innovativeness. Germany displays a more masculine
tendency than France and consequently we found that Germans were more involved in
innovative behaviour than the French were, thus finding support for H13.
Propensity to imitate
184 The results from the ANOVA indicated that there were no significant differences for
the two countries being examined when it came to their likelihood of imitating
behaviour. Therefore, H2, H6, H10, and H14 were not supported by our data.
Normative influence
The results from the data analysis indicated that there are significant differences
between the two countries regarding normative influences on consumption behaviour,
therefore, the means were examined to validate the hypotheses relating to each of the
four cultural dimensions.
Since, consumers in a more collectivistic society are more likely to conform to
existing norms, it was hypothesised that normative influences on their behaviour
would be higher than on individuals from a less collectivistic society. Germany
demonstrated to be more collectivist than France in Hofstedes (1980) study but tended
to be less influenced by norms in our study with a mean of 1.95 which compared to a
mean of 2.39 for France. Hence, H3 was not supported.
H7 had proposed that consumers from a large power distance culture would be
more likely to be susceptible to normative influences. France with a much larger power
distance score than Germany, had a mean of 2.39 for normative influences as compared
to that of 1.95 of Germany, and we can, therefore, conclude that there is support for H7.
It was expected that consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures would be
more likely to be influenced by normative influences than those from less strong
uncertainty avoidance cultures. This hypothesis was supported as French, with a
higher score of uncertainty avoidance culture than Germans, demonstrated to be more
susceptible to influences from others in their consumption.
Normative influences were anticipated to be higher in more feminine cultures when
compared to that in less feminine cultures. France being a more feminine culture than
Germany, would therefore be expected to demonstrate a greater tendency towards
normative influences. Indeed, the data show the French to be more liable to be
influenced by others than the Germans, validating H15.
Interpersonal communications
The ANOVA results pointed towards significant differences between the interpersonal
communications within each country so the means were examined to confirm or reject
the relevant hypotheses.
It was expected that the strong ties in collectivistic societies would be
more favourable to interpersonal communications. Germany was shown to be more
collectivistic than France and the data accordingly illustrated Germans to
be more influenced by interpersonal communications thus, providing support for H4.
Consumers in a larger power distance culture would be more apt to be influenced by
interpersonal communications in their purchases but our data showed otherwise.
Germans, with a smaller power distance culture, were found to be more likely to be
influenced by interpersonal communications than the French, therefore we did not find Cultural
any support for H8. differences
Consumers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures try to reduce their anxiety of the
uncertain by modelling their behaviour after the experiences of others, based on which
H12 had predicted consumers from stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures to be
predisposed towards interpersonal communications. France, which is stronger in
uncertainty avoidance than Germany, did not show such an inclination as a result of 185
which H12 was not supported.
Feminine cultures being characterised by co-operation are more likely to conform to
social norms and therefore, more likely to be influenced by interpersonal
communications. Even though France was shown to be a more feminine culture
than Germany, the French did not turn out to be more likely to participate in
interpersonal communications by our data. As a result we had to reject H16.
References
Baruch, Y. (1999), Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis, Human
Relations, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 421-38.
Bass, F.M. (1969), A new product growth model for consumer durables, Management Science,
Vol. 15, pp. 215-27.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1996), Exploratory consumer buying behaviour:
conceptualization and measurement, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 13, pp. 121-37.
Bearden, W.O. and Netermeyer, R.G. (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Bearden, W.O., Netermeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 473-81.
Bearden, W.O., Netermeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1990), Further validation of the consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
pp. 770-6.
Clark, T. (1990), International marketing and national character: a review and proposal for an
integrative theory, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 66-79.
Delener, N. and Neelankavil, J.P. (1990), Informational sources and media usage: a comparison
between Asian and Hispanic subcultures, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 45-52.
Douglas, S. and Wind, Y. (1987), The myth of globalization, Columbia Journal of World
Business, pp. 19-29.
DRozario, D. and Choudhury, P.K. (2000), Effect of assimilation on consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 290-307.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behaviour, The Dryden Press,
Fort Worth, TX.
Foxall, G.R. (1988), Consumer innovativeness: novelty seeking, creativity, and cognitive style,
in Hirschman, E.C. and Sheth, J. (Eds), Research in Consumer Behaviour,Vol. 3, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 79-113.
Gatignon, H., Eliahshberg, J. and Robertson, T.S. (1989), Modelling multinational diffusion
patterns: an efficient methodology, Marketing Science, Vol. 8, pp. 231-47.
Green, R.T. and Langeard, E. (1975), A cross-national comparison of consumer habits and
innovator characteristics, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, pp. 34-41.
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J. and Cooper, M. (2003), Web-based and mail surveys: a comparison of Cultural
response, data and cost, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-58.
differences
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 283-95.
Hirschman, E.C. (1981), American Jewish ethnicity: its relationship to some selected aspects of
consumer behaviour, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 102-10.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 189
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1983), The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 75-90.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill
International, New York, NY.
Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M. and Holden, S.J.S. (1999), Smokers and beer drinkers: values and
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 536-57.
Levitt, T. (1983), The globalization of markets, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 92-102.
McCracken, G. (1986), Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, pp. 71-84.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F.M. (1990), New product diffusion models in marketing: a
review and directions for research, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-26.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 229-42.
Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), National culture and new product development: an
integrative review, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 61-72.
OGuinn, T.C. and Meyer, T.P. (1984), Segmenting the Hispanic market: the use of Spanish
language radio, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 23, pp. 9-16.
Pallant, J. (2003), SPSS Survival Manual, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Ram, S. and Jung, H. (1994), Innovativeness in product usage: a comparison of early adopters
and early majority, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Rogers, E. (1976), New product adoption and diffusion, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 290-301.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schroeder, J.E. (1996), An analysis of the consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
scale, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 585-99.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Hofstede, F.T. and Wedel, M. (1999), A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-69.
Streubbe, J.M., Kernan, J.B. and Grogan, T.J. (1986), The refusal problem in telephone surveys,
Journal of Advertising Research, June/July, pp. 29-37.
Takada, H. and Jain, D. (1991), Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer durable goods
in pacific rim countries, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 48-54.
Tellefsen, T. and Takada, H. (1999), The relationship between mass media availability and the
multicountry diffusion of consumer products, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 77-96.
IMR Whitelock, J. and Rey, J-C. (1998), Cross-cultural advertising in Europe. An empirical survey of
television advertising in France and the UK, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15
23,2 No. 4, pp. 257-76.
Wiseman, F. and McDonald, P. (1978), The Nonresponse Problem in Consumer Telephone
Surveys, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.
Corresponding author
Sangeeta Singh can be contacted at: [email protected]