ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES
IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:
A CAUTIONARY NOTE
Susan P. Douglas*
Stern School of Business
New York University
and
Edwin J. Nijssen
University of Nijmegen
Revised, April 2002
The support of the Unilever Board for this research is gratefully acknowledged.
* contact author
44 West 4th St., KMEC 7-67
New York, NY 10012-1126
Tel: (212) 998-0418
Fax: (212) 995-4221
E-mail: sdouglas@stern.nyu.edu
ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:
A CAUTIONARY NOTE
ABSTRACT
Cross-national studies may be flawed through “borrowing” scales used in domestic
studies, without examining their relevance and equivalence in other countries and contexts.
Examining construct equivalence is an essential first step in the design of cross-national and
multi-country studies. An important aspect is examining the equivalence in meaning and salience
of a construct in all countries or contexts studied. Unless this is established, erroneous or
misleading conclusions about the nature and significance of the construct in that context are
likely to result. The importance of examining construct equivalence in cross-national research is
illustrated based on a series of studies applying the CETSCALE in the Netherlands.
Keywords: cross-national research, construct equivalence, CETSCALE
ON THE USE OF “BORROWED” SCALES IN CROSS-NATIONAL RESEARCH:
A CAUTIONARY NOTE
INTRODUCTION
With the globalization of markets and international market expansion of many
companies, increasing interest has been shown in conducting cross-national or multi-country
research. Surveys of this research, for example Mintu, Calantone and Gassenheimer (1994), and
Sojka and Tansuhaj (1995), indicate a growth in the number of such studies. Particularly notable
is the increasing diversity of environments and contexts in which marketing and consumption
behavior is being studied. Many of these studies are extensions or replications of a study initially
conducted in a domestic context. Often the same conceptual framework, constructs, and scales as
used in the domestic study, are applied in another country or context. Observed differences
between the two countries are then attributed to ‘cultural” or contextual factors.
Such cross-national or multi-country studies involve a comparison between two or more
sample populations with regard to certain properties or attributes, for example, consumer
attitudes or behavior (van der Vijver and Leung 1997). For example, consumers in the US,
Denmark, Greece and India may be compared with regard to attitudes towards advertising
(Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski and Netemeyer 1993). Comparisons can, however, only be made
with regard to properties that are equivalent. Apples and oranges, for example, can only be
compared with their characteristics as fruit, neither as an orange nor as an apple. Similarly, in
marketing studies, the equivalence of the marketing or consumption behavior studied has to be
established for the comparison to be meaningful.
In cross-cultural research in psychology, establishing equivalence is viewed as key in
making valid cross-cultural comparisons (Poortinga 1989). Equivalence is viewed as specific to a
1
given cross-cultural comparison, and a function of the characteristics of the research instrument,
and the cultural groups or contexts compared. Three different levels of equivalence have been
identified: construct equivalence, measurement unit equivalence and scalar equivalence (van de
Vijver and Leung 1997). Construct equivalence requires that a construct or concept occurs and
has the same meaning across countries and contexts. Measurement unit equivalence requires that
the measurement unit is equivalent, for example, monetary units will need to be converted to be
equivalent, or temperature measured on a Celsius scale to a Kelvin scale or vice versa. Scalar
equivalence requires that response to a given scale is equivalent or has the same meaning and
interpretation across contexts.
In marketing, attention has been typically focused on measurement and scalar
equivalence issues, (Mullen 1995, Singh 1995, Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). These can
only be examined once data have been collected. Relatively less concern has been shown with
assessing conceptual or construct equivalence in terms of the relevance of the construct in a
given research context prior to data collection. Unless, however, the salience of constructs and
the need for modification of the related instrument in a given context is addressed in the early
stages of research, the validity and meaning of research results, is open to question and may
result in erroneous or misleading conclusions about the groups compared.
The purpose of the present paper is to highlight the importance of assessing the relevance
of a construct and its operationalization in each research context or setting when designing crosscultural research. This is particularly crucial where the measurement instrument is “borrowed,”
i.e., a scale developed and validated in one country or context is used in another country or
context that differs with regard to certain characteristics likely to affect that construct. In this
case, the researcher needs to examine whether the construct has the same underlying meaning or
2
significance in another country or context and hence the same measurement instrument can be
used to effectively tap this construct in both contexts. This issue is illustrated by a study using
the CETSCALE, a measure of consumer ethnocentrism, in the Netherlands. Consumer
ethnocentrism provides an appropriate construct to examine since it was initially identified in the
U.S. The CETSCALE, an instrument to measure consumer ethnocentrism was initially
developed and validated in the U.S. (Shimp and Sharma 1987) and has also been examined in
other large industrialized countries such as Japan, Germany and France (Netemeyer, Durvasula
and Lichtenstein 1991).
The Netherlands provides a markedly different context from these countries with regard
to factors related to ethnocentrism, as for example, nationalism (Adorno et al 1950) and national
pride. Such feelings are not strong among the Dutch who exhibit lack of concern for national
sovereignty. For example, one study found that members of the Dutch Parliament were not
familiar with the words of the Dutch national anthem (Scheepers, Felling and Peters 1989). In
addition, the Netherlands differs from the US in aspects likely to influence consumer attitudes
toward foreign products/brands, such as interaction with other nationalities and exposure to ideas
and products from other cultures and nations. In particular, younger Dutch people travel
extensively and are exposed to a range of ideas and influences from other countries and
backgrounds.
Issues associated with examining construct salience and equivalence in different cultural
contexts are first discussed, together with the dangers associated with assuming that a construct
is equivalent without prior examination of the issue (Berry 1969, 1989, Leung and Zhang 1996).
The construct of consumer ethnocentrism is then examined, together with its applicability in the
3
Netherlands. The key findings of the illustrative study are next reviewed and some directions for
conducting future cross-cultural research suggested.
ASSESSING CONSTRUCT EQUIVALENCE CROSS-NATIONALLY
Interest in the cross-cultural equivalence of constructs and measures has long been a
central theme in cross-cultural psychology (van de Vijver and Leung 1997, Lonner and
Adamopoulos 1997). Cross-cultural psychology is concerned with testing the universality and
generality of psychological theories and concepts developed in one single country or context. It
examines variations in attitudes and behavior in different countries to broaden and refine existing
concepts, and to stimulate more rigorous conceptual and operational definitions of constructs
(Poortinga 1989). Consequently, a key focus of the discipline is identifying factors that challenge
the validity of cross-cultural comparisons.
In the early stages of research the conceptualization of the theoretical construct relevant
to the study and the framing of research questions can give rise to issues of construct nonequivalence and bias. According to Sears (1961) conceptual or construct equivalence is defined
as whether a given construct or concept has the same meaning and is equally relevant in all
countries and cultures. Even where relevant, the constructs studied may not be expressed in the
same ways or behavior in other countries and contexts. For example, the meaning and relevance
of the self-concept or being a good son or daughter has been found to differ substantially in the
Chinese and North American cultures (Ho 1996, Markus and Kitayama, 1991). In Asian cultures
the self-concept encompasses relations of the self to others, as well as individual feelings of selfworth as in Western cultures. Similarly in Asian cultures being a good son or daughter includes a
much broader range of duties and obligations than in Western society. This implies that the
4
construct cannot be operationalized in the same way in different countries or cultures and that
different measurement instruments will be needed.
In marketing, concern has been expressed with regard to the cross national applicability
of constructs (Durvasula, Andrews, Lysonski and Netemeyer 1993, Lee and Green 1991,
Parameswaran and Yaprak 1987, van Raaij 1978), but little empirical research to assess these
issues has been conducted. In particular, the need to “decenter” studies, i.e. eliminate the
dominance of single country or societal context in developing the conceptual framework (Werner
and Campbell 1970) has seldom been considered.
Examination of construct equivalence and bias is especially critical where a theoretical
construct and a related measurement instrument have been developed in a specific country and
socio-cultural setting (Craig and Douglas 2000). Many attitudinal scales used in marketing such
as the CETSCALE, or MARKOR (a measure of marketing orientation developed by Kohli and
Jaworski 1993) have been developed in the U.S. Their equivalence in other contexts needs to be
established, particularly where these contexts differ with regard to key parameters. This is
important for any scale where the construct is strongly socially or culturally embedded, as, for
example, shopping orientation, materialism, marketing orientation, etc.
Once data have been collected, construct non-equivalence across cultures and contexts
can be assessed, based on the structural or configural equivalence of a measure, as, for example,
based on internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis, structural equation modeling and other
statistical techniques (Labouvie and Ruetsch 1995, Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). If,
however, the researcher is concerned with developing a reliable and valid measure of the
construct in a given context, a preliminary phase of research needs to be conducted. This should
focus on examining differences in definition, in relevant domains or inappropriateness of item
5
content across cultures (Cronbach and Meehl 1995, van de Vijver and Leung 1997).
Nomological networks or convergent and discriminant validity of the construct should be studied
to assess non-equivalence (Embretson 1983). These issues are next examined in relation to the
CETSCALE in the Netherlands.
THE CONCEPT OF CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
The concept of consumer ethnocentrism originated in the more general concept of
ethnocentrism. This is defined by Webster’s dictionary as “an attitude that one’s own group (race
or people) is superior.” According to LeVine and Campbell (1972), “the symbols and values of
one’s own ethnic or national group become objects of pride and attachment, whereas symbols of
other groups may become objects of contempt.” The concept is thus closely linked to patriotism
and political-economic conservatism and has been studied in that context (Adorno, FrenkelBrunswik, Levinson and Nevitt Sanford 1950).
As applied to consumer behavior, ethnocentrism has been viewed as beliefs held by U.S.
consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products
(Shimp and Sharma 1987). Purchasing imported products is held to be wrong in that it
potentially harms the domestic economy, causes loss of jobs, and is unpatriotic. In addition, to
the extent that domestic products are viewed as superior, products from other countries (i.e. from
outgroups) are objects of contempt to highly ethnocentric consumers.
A seventeen-item scale termed the CETSCALE was designed to measure this concept
(Shimp and Sharma 1987). The scale was developed from a pool of 180 items elicited from over
800 consumers in the United States and subsequently refined in two successive studies on large
samples. The reliability of the resultant seventeen-item scale was examined extensively in four
large-scale studies, and showed high internal validity. It also exhibited discriminant validity
6
relative to Adorno’s patriotism, political economic conservatism and dogmatism scales (1950).
Shimp and Sharma (1987) also found a shortened ten-item version to have high internal
consistency and external validity (Table 1). In addition, the CETSCALE showed predictive
validity relative to general attitudes towards foreign-made products and purchase intentions of
foreign-made cars.
The CETSCALE has been translated and used to assess consumer ethnocentrism in a
number of other countries outside the U.S. (Sharma, Shimp and Shin 1995, Good and
Huddleston 1995). The results of these studies have been somewhat conflicting. One study based
on student samples in the U.S., France, Japan and West Germany found evidence of internal
consistency of the scale across all four countries, and a similar unidimensional factor structure
(Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991). Correlation with attitudes towards the home
country as well as the importance of buying domestic products was also found. However,
correlation with attitudes to buying foreign products was less strong in France, Japan and West
Germany than in the U.S. Equally, Good and Huddleston (1995) found consumer ethnocentrism
to predict buying intentions for domestic or foreign products in Poland, but not in Russia.
In addition, the countries where the CETSCALE has been found to be reliable, i.e.
France, West Germany and Japan, are typically large highly developed countries with low levels
of foreign imports, and a large internal market. This is likely to affect attitudes towards foreign
products and perceptions that they are from “outgroups” (LeVine and Campbell 1972). In other
countries, such as developing markets, or countries with high levels of foreign imports,
conditions surrounding attitudes towards foreign products will differ (Balabanis,
Diamantopoulos, Mueller and Melewar 2001). For example, in some product categories, foreign
7
brands are positioned as high-end brands and are perceived as superior to domestic brands.
Consequently, attitudes towards foreign products are positive.
Equally, in small open societies, the salience of the consumer ethnocentrism construct is
open to question for several reasons. In the first place, ethnocentrism tends to be associated with
feelings of nationalism and the superiority of the group to which one belongs (Adorno et al
1950). It is thus less likely to be salient in countries where nationalist feelings are less strong.
Secondly, in small economies with high levels of foreign trade, imports of foreign goods and few
major domestic manufacturers, feelings of consumer ethnocentrism and negative attitudes
towards foreign products may be less pronounced, and have less impact on purchase behavior.
Equally, they may take a different form or be expressed in different ways. For example, such
attitudes may vary according to the product category. This is particularly likely to occur where
domestic made or branded products are not available in various consumer product categories,
and foreign brands are often market leaders.
The Netherlands provides an interesting test ground to examine this issue. The country is
relatively small in terms of geographic area, i.e. 37,330 square kilometers, has a population of 14
million. It has extensive borders to the east with Germany and with Belgium to the south. In
1999, exports accounted for 55% of GDP, while foreign direct investment, a key measure of
global integration, was the third highest of any country in the world (World Bank 2000).
Furthermore, the major consumer goods companies, such as Unilever, Heineken, Douwe
Egbert/Sara Lee and Philips are large multi-nationals that depend on markets outside the
Netherlands for the majority of their sales. Over 70% of the assets of these multinationals are
outside the Netherlands. As a result, they are regarded by the Dutch as ‘international” rather than
8
national companies. Even among small companies the export sales ratio averages 45% (Central
Bureau of Statistics, Netherlands).
The small size of the country and its central location also results in high levels of
communication and flows of people, goods and ideas across neighboring borders. This results in
awareness and openness to foreign brands and products. In numerous product markets, as, for
example, cars, computers, there are no local manufacturers. Consequently, the range of consumer
choice consists exclusively of foreign makes and brands. Hence, consumers readily acquire
knowledge about and are familiar with different foreign brands and manufacturers.
The Dutch, particularly the younger generation, are well known for their lack of
nationalist sentiments and concern for national sovereignty. The Dutch welcomed the euro,
pointing out that it would make travel much easier, and enthusiastically embrace the concept of a
fully integrated Europe. Patriotic groups such as the Daughters of the American Revolution are
notably absent. This absence of nationalistic feelings is reinforced by a propensity to travel and
ability to speak several languages. Most Dutch are fluent in English; many also speak German
and some French (Wall Street Journal April 27 1998). Well over half the population take their
vacations abroad, and an increasing number travel outside Europe. These factors suggest that
consumer ethnocentrism, particularly insofar as it reflects attitudes about the morality of
purchasing foreign products may not be salient and have limited applicability in the Netherlands.
This was examined in two surveys conducted in the Netherlands.
USING THE CETSCALE IN THE NETHERLANDS
Research Approach
Some issues with regard to administering the CETSCALE in the Netherlands were
initially uncovered in a consumer survey of brand preferences. The purpose of the study was to
9
assess perceptions and associations for six international and domestic brands in two product
categories, beer and soft drinks. The CETSCALE was included in the study and hypothesized to
be related to preferences for domestic rather than international brands. Initial translation and
pretesting of the CETSCALE raised some questions with regard to its use in the Netherlands.
Subsequent analysis suggested that the construct was not structurally equivalent to that found in
previous studies in the U.S.
This triggered another study focusing more explicitly on examining the applicability and
dimensionality of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands. Two versions of a questionnaire were
drawn up, one with a direct or literal translation of the scale and the second, a modified version
adapting the statements to the Dutch context. The direct translation was intended to provide a
base against which the modified questionnaire could be compared. Each questionnaire also
contained a number of questions on related constructs such as patriotism, attitudes towards
purchasing domestic (Dutch) products, and reluctance to buy foreign (German) products. These
questionnaires were then administered to samples of consumers in the Netherlands. The findings
are next discussed in more detail.
Preliminary Findings
A survey of over 1,000 Dutch consumers in three cities in the Netherlands, Nijmegen,
Utrecht and Rotterdam provided some initial insights into the construct equivalence of the
CETSCALE in the Netherlands. The questionnaire included a number of questions relating to
preferences and associations for the six brands of beer and soft drinks, as well as some questions
relating to foreign travel and involvement, and the ten-item version of the CETSCALE, using
five-point Likert scales.
10
Some questions concerning the meaning of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands began to
emerge when translating it into Dutch (Appendix A). Analysis of several iterations of pretesting
revealed that the means on eight items were extremely skewed (i.e. below 2 on a 5-point Likert
scale). The only exceptions were two items relating to purchase of foreign made products when
domestic products were not available. The scale showed a high level of internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86). However, examination of the factor structure of the items suggested
the existence of a two-dimensional structure rather than the unidimensional structure found by
Shimp and Sharma. A principal components analysis with varimax rotation resulted in the
identification of two factors (Table 2). The first factor clearly related to the core element of
consumer ethnocentrism- reflecting preference for domestic products and a belief that the
purchase of foreign made products would be potentially damaging to the Dutch economy. The
second factor appeared to reflect a more nuanced attitude towards foreign products, i.e. that only
products which were not available domestically, should be imported or purchased. Confirmatory
factor analysis (LISREL 7) also showed that a two dimensional model provided a better fit for
the data than a one-dimensional model. Another interesting finding was the relation of the factor
structure to preferences for domestic soft drink brands. When the scale was constrained to a
single factor, there was no relation to preferences for domestic soft drink brands. In the twofactor model both sets of factor scores were positively associated with preference for domestic
brands.
These findings suggested that the construct of consumer ethnocentrism underlying the
CETSCALE was two-dimensional in the Netherlands – one dimension consisting of core
ethnocentrism items, the other of items relating to the availability of domestic products. Some
differences were also observed based on age. Older consumers, especially over 40 were more
11
likely to have negative attitudes to foreign products, though this was less marked among those
with a college education. Overall, negative attitudes were less marked in the Netherlands, as
compared with other countries, implying that it may be of less significance in purchase decisions,
or only characterize a relatively limited number of people.
The Study
A study further probing potential construct bias in using the CETSCALE
in the Netherlands was then conducted. First, a preliminary phase of qualitative research was
conducted to examine the significance and meaning of consumer ethnocentrism among Dutch
consumers. This consisted of in-depth interviews relating to the construct, as also the meaning of
different items and phrases used in the CETSCALE (based on a literal translation of items into
Dutch). This again confirmed the problems associated with using a direct translation of the
CETSCALE in the Netherlands, particularly concerning the items relating to the availability of
domestic products (see Appendix A).
Based on these findings, two versions of the CETSCALE were developed (Appendix A).
One was a direct or literal translation of the CETSCALE based on a back translation procedure.
This was intended to provide a basis for comparison. The other was a modified version, adapting
the items to clarify their meaning in the Dutch context. For example, “American products, first,
last and foremost,” was translated as “In general, nothing beats products from your own
country.” In both questionnaires, an additional item relating to the purchase of foreign products
when domestic brands were not available was included. This was designed to balance the factor
analysis and examine further the existence of a second factor relating to domestic product
availability. Both versions also included two attitudinal constructs, patriotism and attitudes
towards travel, to assess discriminant validity. Questions relating to two criterion constructs,
12
preferences for domestic products and brands, and reluctance to buy foreign (German) products
were also included (Appendix B).
The two versions of the questionnaire were administered to samples of 126 and 127
respondents respectively, in Nijmegen, a city in the eastern part of the Netherlands. Since
Nijmegen is a university town, the educational level of the sample tended to be high;
approximately half of the sample had a college education. There was also a slight bias towards
younger consumers; over one-third of the sample was between 18-25 (Appendix C). The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of respondents for the two questionnaire versions
were approximately the same.
Data Analysis
The means and standard deviations for the two versions of the questionnaire were first
examined to assess differences with regard to the skewedness of the distribution. Next, principal
components analyses of both literal and modified versions of the CETSCALE based on 10 and
11 item versions were conducted to examine the underlying dimensionality of the construct. A
series of confirmatory factor analyses was then performed to further test dimensionality (Fornell
and Larker 1981). Next, the relationship of the control and criterion variables with both one and
two factor models of the two scale versions was examined to assess their nomological,
convergent and predictive validity. These findings are next discussed in more detail.
Findings
Examination of the principal components factor analyses for both scale versions
suggested that the construct was not unidimensional. In the case of the literal scale version, two
factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 were identified. One represented the core items in the
CETSCALE. The second included the items relating to the purchase of foreign products when
13
domestic products or brands were not available. A similar structure was observed for the
modified scale version. These analyses supported the proposition that the consumer
ethnocentrism construct was more complex in the Netherlands than had originally been found in
the U.S.
Confirmatory factor analyses for both scale versions further supported these findings
(Table 3). For all scale versions, the two-dimensional model provided a better fit for the data
than the single-factor model.1 Using a χ2 difference test we obtained a χ2diff = 13.7, dfdiff = 1,
p<.01 for the literal 10 item scale version, a χ2diff = 31.8, dfdiff = 1, p < .01 for the literal 11 item
version and a χ2diff = 13.2, dfdiff = 1, p<.01 for the modified 11 item version. In addition,
examination of the correlations between the two dimensions further confirmed lack of
unidimensionality. In the case of the 11-item modified version, the correlation was .22. Even for
the 10-item version the correlation was .70, (0.09), less than the .90 or above which might be
expected for a one-dimensional model. The fit of the two-dimensional model was also
significantly improved for all three versions, by allowing for (error) correlation of two or more
items in each of the dimensions (resulting in most fit measures meeting the criterion >.90). As
there was, however, no theoretical support for these correlations and because it hindered a
straightforward comparison between the different models, these were not included in the final
model.
Next, the relation of the factors in the one and two-dimensional models to the criterion
variables and the two control measures was examined (Table 4). This showed a strong
correlation between the two criterion variables, attitudes towards domestic products and
reluctance to buy foreign (German) products, both for the single-factor model and the first factor
1
All fit measures increase and meet the > 0.90 criterion if some errors are allowed to correlate within a dimension.
The significant difference between the single and two-factor solution remains.
14
in the two-dimensional model (i.e. the core CETSCALE items). This suggests that the Dutch
have a negative attitude towards German products and perceive them as “foreign”. This is
somewhat surprising in view of the fact that Germany is the Netherlands’s main trading partner,
and that Nijmegen is close to the German border. The correlation between the criterion variables
and the second factor was positive, though not significant. This suggests that reliance on “core”
items of a scale may provide a more coherent and stronger measure in cross-national research.
Inclusion of ancillary items, which exhibit context-specific variation, may attenuate the strength
of observed relationships.
A similar patterning of results was observed for one of the control variables, patriotism.
This was significantly correlated with the single-factor model and the first factor of the twodimensional model. However, patriotism was not correlated with the second factor providing
further support that the “availability” factor is a distinct construct. The second control construct,
interest in foreign travel, showed an inverse patterning. It was not correlated with the core
CETSCALE items, but was associated with the “availability” factor. This suggests, somewhat
interestingly, that while negative attitudes towards the purchase of foreign products are
associated with patriotism, they are not necessarily strongly associated with lack of interest in
foreign travel. On the other hand, more nuanced attitudes towards the purchase of foreign
products appear to be associated with love of foreign travel and exposure to foreign countries.
Discussion
The results provide a number of insights into the problems associated with use of
“borrowed” scales in cross-national or cross-cultural research.
Contextual salience: In the first place, the findings suggest that considerable caution
should be exercised when using scales developed in one country or cultural context in other
15
environments. This is particularly important where the construct measured is likely to be
culturally embedded, or related to macroeconomic country characteristics, as in the case of the
CETSCALE. Consumer ethnocentrism was originally studied in the U.S. in the context of
patriotism and politico-economic conservatism, and relates to a belief in the superiority of one’s
own group (country).
This construct appears to be salient and manifested in a similar way in large
industrialized countries such as France, West Germany, and Japan, where similar feelings of
patriotism, national superiority, and a belief that domestic products are superior and of better
quality have been identified (Netemeyer, Durvasula and Lichtenstein 1991). However, such
feelings are less salient in small market economies with open borders and a high proportion of
foreign trade. This is particularly likely to be the case where there are no or few domestic brands
in many product categories, as in the Netherlands. Consequently, attitudes towards the purchase
of foreign products are more nuanced. In particular, a distinction is made between the
appropriateness of purchasing foreign goods in general, and purchasing foreign goods when no
domestic (Dutch) products are available.
Construct non-equivalence: The study also suggests the importance of examining nonequivalence where the research context or setting differs in certain critical aspects from the initial
study setting. Use of exploratory factor analysis provides an initial indication of nonequivalence. In all tests of the CETSCALE in the Netherlands, the two-factor model provided a
better fit, and showed stronger relationships with criterion and control variables than the singlefactor model. The core dimension reflects the central tenet of consumer ethnocentrism, namely
the appropriateness or morality of purchasing foreign products. The second dimension reflects a
more nuanced attitude toward purchase of foreign products, and a belief that foreign products
16
should be purchased only when they are not available in the Netherlands. This suggests that a
second dimension relating to non-availability of domestic alternatives may exist in small
countries.
Convergent and divergent validity: The low correlation of both criterion and control
variables with the second factor further confirm the existence of a distinct element relating to
non-availability of domestic products. The findings also suggest that core consumer ethnocentric
attitudes are closely related to patriotism and may be indicative of a conservative personality.
Interestingly, the absence of a negative correlation with interest in foreign travel suggests that
such attitudes are not necessarily associated with lack of exposure to, or interest in, other
countries. This latter finding may, however, be specific to the Netherlands, where the relatively
small size of the country and proximity to other countries result in frequent interaction with and
travel to neighboring countries. Also travel is positively associated with the second factor
relating to non-availability of domestic alternatives.
The study is, however, limited to studying differences in the construct in a single small
country. Further research is clearly needed, particularly with regard to other small countries
similar to the Netherlands, as for example, Denmark, which has a high degree of interaction with
other countries, and also a high percentage of foreign or imported products. This may help to
improve understanding of attitudes to purchasing products of different national origins in
different contexts in an era of increasing consumer and market globalization.
DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
These findings suggest a number of directions for further research in conducting crossnational studies, and more specifically in using scales developed in one country or context in
other countries or contexts.
17
Research context. In the first place, the study illustrates the importance of carefully
considering the impact of macroeconomic or other relevant characteristics of countries on the
operationalization of the constructs studied. Many constructs and measures of these have been
developed in large market economies such as the US. Hence it is important to consider how far
characteristics of that context, for example, feelings of nationalism and patriotism, availability of
domestic product alternatives influence or shape the construct, and how it is expressed. The
impact of differences in these characteristics needs to be considered in designing research and
developing an appropriate conceptual framework for studying the construct in other research
settings (Hong and Chin, 2001).
Examination of construct equivalence. Secondly, the findings clearly underscore the need
to consider construct equivalence in the early stage of the research design, and in the formulation
of research questions and hypotheses as well as in the conceptual framework, which underlies
these. This is particularly important where the construct has first been identified and a related
scale or other measurement instrument developed in a single or specific socio-economic context.
In this case, the researcher needs to determine first whether the same construct is equally salient
and is expressed in the same terms in other countries and cultural contexts.
Where initial examination based, for example, on expert opinion suggests that the
construct may not be equivalent, it may be desirable to conduct a preliminary phase of research
to investigate this. This might, for example, take the form of focus group or in-depth interviews
relating to the construct. The findings would provide insights into the construct and how it might
be expressed in different contexts. This might suggest adaptation of the measurement instrument,
as for example, broadening the domain specification and adding items to reflect country or
context-specific items (see Figure 1). This will, however, lengthen the questionnaire, and is most
18
likely to be appropriate where the main focus of a study is to examine the construct in different
situational or contextual conditions.
Use of shortened scales. Third and relatedly, the study suggests that it may be desirable
in cross-cultural studies to use shortened versions of scales that reflect core items of a construct.
Often in developing scales in a purely domestic context, researchers may include domains or
aspects of a construct, which are non-central, ancillary or context-specific. In a cross-cultural
context, this may attenuate the predictive strength of the measurement instrument. Use of
shortened scales has been found in other contexts to improve predictive ability, and has the
added advantage of shortening the questionnaire (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1995).
Translation equivalence. The final issue relates to the translation of items making up an
attitudinal scale or of attitudinal constructs. In the social sciences (Brislin 1980, van de Vijver
and Leung 1997), the procedure advocated is that of back-translation. Items are translated into
the target language by bilinguals who are native speakers of that language and back-translated by
natives of the base language. This helps to provide a faithful or literal translation and eliminate
translation errors or mistakes. However, it is unlikely to provide an effective means for
translating colloquial items or expressive items (Hambleton 1993, 1994). In some cases, a term
may be used for which there is no direct equivalent in another language, for example philotimo
in Greek or “ face” in Chinese. Equally, colloquial terms need to be translated into a colloquial
equivalent. Consequently, rather than using direct or back translation, it is preferable to use
parallel translation (Craig and Douglas 2000). A committee of bilinguals co-operate on
translating and adapting an instrument. This has the advantage of using people of different
backgrounds and perspectives in a co-operative effort to improve the quality of translation and
19
assess its accuracy. Often this approach is helpful in “decentring” the research instrument – and
developing one which is better adapted to a specific culture (Werner and Campbell 1970).
CONCLUSIONS
In brief, use of “borrowed” scales is fraught with danger, particularly where the scale is
used in a country or context that differs substantially in certain key respects from that in which
the scale was originally developed. In some cases the dangers of this practice are evident, for
example, in using scales of consumer satisfaction developed in industrialized nations in
emerging market countries or formerly planned economies. In other cases, the attendant pitfalls
may be less evident, as for example, those examined here, associated with to the size of an
economy or society and its openness to other cultural influences and ideas.
An important first step in order to avoid a “pseudo-etic” or imposed perspective in
conducting cross-national research is to assess construct equivalence in other countries and
contexts. This should then lead to a “decentred” research approach, removing the influence of a
dominant country or cultural perspective. Preliminary investigation of construct equivalence is
essential to determine whether instruments should be modified, or alternatively, an emic or
culture-specific instrument developed. While time-consuming and laborious, such steps are
nonetheless essential to avoid inaccurate or inadequate measurement and erroneous or
misleading conclusions.
20
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J., and Sanford, R. Nevitt (1950), The
Authoritarian Personality, Harper & Row, New York.
Balabanis, George, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Rene Dentiste Mueller and T.C. Melewar
(2001), “The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer
Ethnocentric Tendencies,”Journal of International Business Studies. Vol.32, pp.157-175.
Berry, J. W. (1969), ” On Cross-Cultural Comparability,” International Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.119-128.
Berry, J. W. (1989), ”Imposed Etics-Emics-Derived Etics: The Operationalization of a
Compelling Idea,” International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp.721-735.
Brislin, Richard (1980), Translation and Content Analysis of Oral and Written Materials, in
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, H. C. Triandis and J. W. Berry, eds., Allyn and
Bacon, Boston., Vol. 1, pp. 389-444.
Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, J. C. (1966), Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs
for Research, Rand McNally, Chicago.
Cronbach, L. J. and Meehl, P. E. (1995), ” Construct Validity in Psychological Tests,”
Psychological Bulletin No.52, pp. 281-302.
Craig, C.Samuel and Susan P. Douglas, International Marketing Research, second edition, John
Wiley &Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK.
Durvasula, Srinivas, Andrews, J. Craig, Lysonski, Steven, and Netemeyer, Richard (1993),
”Assessing the Cross-National Applicability of Consumer Behavior Models: A Model of
Attitude toward Advertising in General,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.19, March, pp.
626-636.
“Dutch Doors to the New Europe”(1998), Wall Street Journal, 27 April.
Embretson, S. E. (1983),”Construct Validity: Construct Representation Versus Nomothetic
Span.,” Psychological Bulletin No. 93, pp. 179-197.
Fornell, Claes and Larker, David F. (1981), ”Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research Vol.18,
February, pp.39-50.
Good, L. K. and Huddleston, P. (1995),”Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian Consumers: Are
Feelings and Intentions Related?”, International Marketing Review Vol.12, No.5, pp. 35-48.
Hambleton, R. K. (1993), “Translating Achievement Tests for Use in Cross-National Studies”,
European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 9, pp.57-68.
Hambleton, R. K. (1994), “Guidelines for Adapting Educational and Psychological Tests: A
Progress Report”, European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol. 10, pp. 229-244.
Ho, D. Y. F. (1996), Filial Piety and its Psychological Consequences, in Handbook of Chinese
Psychology, Michael H. Bond, ed., Oxford University Press, Hong Kong.
21
Hong Ying-yi and Chi-yeu Chiu (2001), “Toward a Paradigm Shift: From Cross-Cultural
Differences in Social Cognition to Social-Cognitive Mediation of Cultural Differences”,
Social Cognition, Vol.19, No. 3, pp.181-196.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Kohli, Ajay K. (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and
Consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 17, p.53.
Klein, Jill G., Ettenson, Richard, and Morris, Marlene D. (1998), “The Animosity Model of
Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62, January, pp. 89-100.
Labouvie, Erick and Ruetsch, Charles (1995), “Testing for Equivalence of Measurement Scales:
Simple Structure and Metric Invariance Reconsidered”, Multivariate Behavioral Research
Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Lee, Chol and Green, Robert T. (1991), “Cross-Cultural Examination of the Fishbein Behavioral
Intention Model”, Journal of International Business Studies Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 289-305.
Leung, Kwok and Zhang, J. (1996), “Systemic Considerations: Factors Facilitating and Impeding
the Development of Psychology in Developing Countries”, International Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 30, pp.693-706.
LeVine, R. and Campbell, D. T. (1972), Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes
and Group Behavior, Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lonner, Walter J. and Adamopoulos, John (1997), “Culture as Antecedent to Behavior”,
Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, John W. Berry, Ype H. Poortinga and Janak
Pandey, Allyn and Bacon, Edition 2, Vol. 1, Boston, pp. 43-83.
. Markus, Hazel and Kitayama, Shinobu (1991), “Culture and the Self: Implications for
Cognition, Emotion and Motivation”, Psychological Review Vol. 98, No. 2 pp. 224-253.
Mintu, Alma T., Calantone, Roger J. and Gassenheimer, Jule B. (1994), “Towards Improving
Cross-Cultural Research: Extending Churchill’s Research Paradigm”, Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.5-23.
Mullen, Michael R. (1995), “Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National
Research”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 573-596.
Netemeyer, Richard, Durvasula, Srinivas, and Lichtenstein, Donald R. (1991), “A CrossNational Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 28, August, pp. 320-327.
Parameswaran, Ravi and Yaprak, Attila (1987), “A Cross-National Comparison of Consumer
Research Measures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18, Spring, pp. 35-49.
Poortinga, Ype H. (1989), “Equivalence of Cross-Cultural Data: An Overview of Basic Issues”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 737-756.
Scheepers, Peer, Felling, Albert, and Peters, Jan (1989), “Ethnocentrism in the Netherlands – A
Typological Analysis”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 9-308.
22
Schwartz, S. H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 25, M. Zanna, ed., Academic Press, Orlando, FL.
Sears, Robert N. (1961), “Transcultural Variables and Conceptual Equivalence”, Studying
Personality Cross-culturally, Bert Kaplan, ed., Row, Peleston & Co., Evanston, IL. pp. 445455.
Serpell, R. (1961), The Significance of Schooling: Life-Journeys in an African Society.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
Sharma, Subhash, Shimp, Terence A., and Shin, Jeongshin (1995), ”Consumer Ethnocentrism:
A Test of Antecedents and Moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
23, No. 1, pp. 26-37.
Shimp, Terence A. and Sharma, Subhash (1987), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construct
Validation of the CETSCALE” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 24, August, pp. 280-289.
Singh, Jagdip (1995), “Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 597-620.
Sojka, Jane and Tansuhaj, Patriya: Cross-Cultural Consumer Research (1995), “A Twenty-Year
Review”, Advances in Consumer Research, Frank Kardes and Mita Sujan, eds., Association
for Consumer Research, Provo, UT., Vol. 22, pp. 461-475.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Baumgartner, Hans (1998), “Assessing Measurement
Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25,
No. 1, June, pp. 78-90.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. and Baumgartner, Hans (1995), “Development and CrossCultural Validation of a Short Form of CSI as a Measure of Optimal Stimulation Level”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 12, July, pp. 97-104.
van de Vijver, Fons and Leung, Kwok (1997), Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural
Research, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
van Raaij, W. F. (1978), “Cross-Cultural Research Methodology as a Case of Construct
Validity”, Advances in Consumer Research, H. K. Hunt, ed., Association for Consumer
Research, Ann Arbor, MI., Vol. 5, pp. 693-701.
Werner, Oscar and Campbell, Donald T. (1970), “Translating, Working Through Interpreters,
and the Problem of Decentering”, Handbook of Cultural Anthropology, Raoul Naroll and
Ronald Cohen, eds., American Museum of Natural History, New York., pp. 398-419.
World Bank (2000), World Development Indicators, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
23
Table 1
THE 10 ITEM VERSION OF THE CETSCALE
1. Only those products that are unavailable in the U.S. should be imported.
2. American products, first, last and foremost.
3. Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American.
4. It is not right to purchase foreign products.
5. A real American should always buy American-made products.
6. We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries
get rich off us.
7. Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and
causes unemployment.
8. It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support American products.
9. We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our
country.
10. American consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for
putting their fellow Americans out of work.
24
Table 2
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS ANALYSIS OF CETSCALE (First Study)
(Factor Loadings After Varimax Rotation)
Item
Factor 1
Factor 2
5
4
6
10
7
8
2
3
.83
.79
.79
.77
.76
.59
.57
.55
.17
.18
.20
.05
.05
.26
.39
.26
1
9
.01
.28
.88
.67
Factor 1
Factor 2
25
Eigen Value
% of Var.
Explained
4.74
1.10
47.5
11.1
Table 3
RESULTS OF CONFIRMATORY ANALYSES FOR THREE VERSIONS OF
THE CETSCALE – ONE AND TWO DIMENSIONAL MODELS
X2
df
One dimension
94.94
35
0.87
0.79
0.86
0.117
Two dimensions
81.17
34
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.105
One dimension
119.75
44
0.85
0.78
0.84
0.117
Two dimensions
87.97
43
0.89
0.83
0.89
0.091
110.27
44
0.86
0.79
0.73
0.109
79.09
43
0.90
0.84
0.85
0.082
Model
GFI
AGFI
CFI
RMSEA
Correl. of
2 Dimensions
Literal version (10 items)
0.70 (0.09)
Literal version (11 items)
Modified version (11 items)
One dimension
Two dimensions
26
0.65 (0.08)
0.22 (0.13)
Table 4
CORRELATIONS FOR THE MODIFIED VERSION OF THE CETSCALE
AND THE CRITERION AND CONTROL VARIABLES
Modified Version (11 items)
One Dimensional
Model
Criterion variables
Product judgment
Reluctance to buy
Control variables
Patriotism
Travel
Two Dimensional
Model
Factor 1:
Core Items
Factor 2:
Domestic Availability
0.66 (0.00)
0.44 (0.00)
0.71 (0.00)
0.44 (0.00)
0.10 (0.27)
0.15 (0.10)
0.25 (0.00)
-0.06 (0.49)
0.30 (0.00)
-0.17 (0.06)
-0.03 (0.76)
0.22 (0.01)
27
Appendix A
FINAL TRANSLATION CETSCALE:
Original Scale
Modified Scale
Dutch Translation
Back Translation
Dutch Translation
#1: Only those products that are
unavailable in the U.S. should be
imported
Alleen die producten, die in Nederland
niet verkrijgbaar zijn, zouden mogen
worden geimporteerd
Only those products, that in The
Netherlands are not available, should be
(allowed) to be imported
Vooral produkten die in eigen land niet
worden gemaakt moet men importeren
Primarily products that are not
manufactured in one’s own country
should be imported
#2: American products first, last and
foremost
Nederlandse produkten altijd de beste
Dutch products, always (the) best
Er gaat doorgaans niets boven
produkten uit eigen land
In general, there is nothing like (beats)
products from your own country
#3: Purchasing foreign-made
products is un-American
Het aanschaffen van in het buitenland
vervaardigde produkten is
onnederlands
The purchasing of foreign-made
products is un-Dutch
Alleen buitenlandse produkten kopen is
onnederlands
Exclusively/Only buying foreign
products is un-Dutch
Het is typische Nederlands om
geimporteerde goederen te kopen
It is typically Dutch to purchase
imported goods
#4: It is not right to purchase foreign
products (because it puts Americans
out of work)
Het is niet goed om buitenlandse
producten aan te scaffen (omdat
Nederlanders hierdoor hun baan
verliezen)
It is not good to purchase foreign
products (because Dutchmen because
of it lost their jobs)
Je moet zo min mogelijik buitenlandse
producten kopen omdat dat beter is
voor de Nederlandse werkgelegenheid
You should buy as few foreign products
as possible because that is better for
Dutch employment
#5: A real American should always
buy American-made products
Een echte Nederlander zou altijd in
Nederland gemaakte produkten moeten
kopen
A real Dutchman should always buy in
The Netherlands made products
Een Nederlander dient vooral producten A Dutchman should primarily buy
uit eigen land te kopen
products from his own country
#6: We should not buy foreign
products because this hurts
American business and causes
unemployment
We zouden in Nederland gemaakte
producten moeten kopen, in plaats van
andere landen ten koste van ons rijk te
laten worden
We should buy in The Netherlands
made products, instead let other
countries at our expense get rich
We moeten vooral proberen producten
uit eigen land te kopen, in plaats van
andere landen rijker te maken
We should really try to purchase
products from our own country instead
of making other countries rich
#7: Americans should not buy
foreign products because this hurts
American business and causes
unemployment
Nederlanders zouden geen buitenlandse
producten moeten kopen omdat dit het
Nederlandse bedrijfsleven schaadt en
werkeloosheid veroorzaakt
Dutchmen should not buy foreign
products, because this hurts Dutch
business and causes unemployment
Het kopen van buitenlandse produkten
kan het Nederlandse zakenleven
benadelen en werkeloosheid
veroorzaken
Purchasing foreign products can hurt
Dutch business and cause
unemployment
#8: It may cost me in the long run,
but I prefer to support American
products
Al kost het mij uiteindelijik meer, toch
wil ik graag het Nederlandse produkt
ondersteunen
It may eventually cost me more, still I
like to support Dutch business and
causes unemployment
Al kost het mij uiteindelijik meer, toch
blijif ik bepaalde produkten uit eigen
land ondersteunen
Even though it may cost me in the long
run, I will still support certain products
from my own country
#9: We should buy from foreign
countries only those products that we
cannot obtain within our own
country
Wij zouden allen producten uit het
buitenland moeten kopen die we in ons
eigen land niet kunnen krijgen
We should only buy products from
foreign countries that we in our own
country can not get/obtain
We moeten vooral producten uit het
buitenland kopen die in eigen land niet
worden gemaakt
We should primarily buy from other
countries products not manufactured in
our own country
#10: American consumers who
purchase products made in other
countries are responsible for putting
their fellow Americans out of work
Nederlandse consumenten die
producten kopen die in andere landen
zijn gemaakt, zijn verantwoordelijk
voor het werkeloos maken van medeNederlanders
Dutch consumers who buy products
that are made in other countries, are
responsible for making unemployed
(without work) fellow Dutchmen
Nederlandse consumenten die alleen
producten uit andere landen kopen
dragen bij aan de werkeloosheid in
Nederland
Dutch consumers who only buy
products from other countries
contribute to unemployment in The
Netherlands
Original CETSCALE
28
Back Translation
NOTES TO APPENDIX A: TRANSLATING THE CETSCALE
In translating the CETSCALE, a number of issues arise relating both to the underlying
construct, and also the way in which that is expressed. In the first place, a number of the items
are expressed in relatively colloquial terms, and hence pose difficulties in translation. Secondly,
some of the items make certain assumptions, which may not hold or be relevant in all countries
and contexts. Thirdly, some items use terminology which are difficult to translate or may cause
ambiguities.
Colloquialisms: Some items in the CETSCALE pose particular problems in translation
due to their colloquial nature. For example:
“American products, first, last and foremost”
“A real American should always buy American-made products”
“Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American.”
In the first item, the phrase “first, last and foremost” is difficult to translate in some languages,
such as Dutch. Similarly, in the second and third items, the terms “a real American” and “unAmerican” do not always translate directly.
Assumptions: Somewhat more subtle and complex problems arise translating other items
which make certain implicit assumptions such as:
“We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other
countries get rich off us.”
“Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and
causes unemployment.”
The first item assumes that value is added at the manufacturing stage, and that manufacturers in
other countries get the major proportion of value-added. This may not necessarily be the case for
imports from emerging market countries where distributor or import margins account for most of
the value-added. Similarly, in the second item, there is an assumption that foreign products
compete directly with American products, although they may tap different market segments, i.e.
price-sensitive segments, or luxury-oriented consumers.
Terminology: Terminology may also pose problems. For example, in the phrase
“It may cost me in the long run, but I prefer to support American products” and
“It is not right to purchase foreign products,”
Use of the term “support” implicitly suggests a subsidy which is not always easy to translate.
Equally, in some languages, translations of the term “foreign” can have negative connotations. In
some product categories, however, e.g. expensive perfume and clothes, “foreigners” can have
positive connotations. Also, the term “foreign” is somewhat ambiguous and can refer to an
imported product, or one that is manufactured domestically but sold under a foreign brand name.
These issues suggest that considerable care needs to be exercised in translating attitudinal
scales in order to ensure that the same nuances are replicated. In particular, attention needs to be
applied to the strength or valence of the statement when translated, as a result of differences in
the socio-economic or linguistic context.
29
Appendix B
MEANS AND RELIABILITY OF THE CRITERION AND CONTROL VARIABLES
Literal Version
Mean
(st. dev.)
Reliability
(Cronbach α)
Modified Version
Mean
(st. dev.)
Reliability
(Cronbach α)
Control Variables
Travel
0.74
0.75
I love to travel and visit other countries
4.44 (1.02)
4.35 (1.07)
I love to go abroad
4.55 (0.93)
4.47 (1.01)
I go abroad several times a year
3.47 (1.40)
3.15 (1.51)
I like to visit exotic places during my vacation
3.58 (1.41)
Patriotism
3.71 (1.42)
0.79
0.71
It is important to sustain our national anthem
3.79 (1.40)
3.86 (1.37)
On every national holiday we should raise the flag
3.22 (1.40)
3.26 (1.56)
Serving the mother land is an “honorable” thing
3.11 (1.29)
3.20 (1.34)
A real Dutchman supports Dutch sportsmen when they
compete in international games
3.38 (1.45)
3.51 (1.42)
Criterion Variables
Attitude toward domestic products
0.76
0.72
When possible I always buy Dutch brands
2.29 (1.35)
2.25 (1.32)
The workmanship of Dutch products is superior to that
of foreign products
2.35 (1.19)
2.51 (1.28)
I buy Dutch made products as much as possible
2.45 (1.29)
2.56 (1.16)
I think Dutch products are of a better quality than
foreign products
2.47 (1.14)
Reluctance to buy German products
2.62 (1.07)
0.75
0.77
I would feel guilty buying a German product
1.37 (0.77)
1.40 (0.84)
I would never buy a German product
1.46 (0.88)
1.83 (1.18)
Whenever possible I avoid buying German products
1.69 (1.02)
1.78 (1.04)
I do not like the idea of owning a product that was made
in Germany
1.48 (0.89)
1.50 (0.90)
When two products are of similar quality but one is a
Dutch and the other a German brand I would gladly pay
10% more for the Dutch brand
1.95 (1.18)
2.28 (1.33)
30
Appendix C
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS:
(all numbers are in percentages)
Age
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55+
(in years)
26.9
27.4
19.6
17.8
8.3
Education
Gender
Male
Female
54.3
45.7
31
High School
Some college
College degree
Graduate school
2.3
20.6
35.6
41.5
Figure 1
Assessing Construct Equivalence in Cross-National Research
Country A
Country B
Compare Contextual Similarity
Assess salience in Country B based on:
•Literature review of similar/related constructs/concepts
• Discussion with local researchers (local experts)
• Conduct evaluative research, i.e.: focus groups, in-depth
interviews where necessary
Construct/Scale
Developed in
Country A
Compare
Literal
Translation
of Scale
Examine internal
structure via principal
components and/or
confirmatory factor
analysis
Examine nomological validity of literal
and modified versions
Assess criterion and
predictive validity
33
Develop Modified
Version of Scale/
Construct
- broaden domain
specification
- add items