Globalization Attitude, Global Consumption Orientation and Global Brand
Perceptions
Author Information:
Petra Riefler, PhD
Department of International Marketing
University of Vienna, Bruenner Strasse 72, 1210 Vienna, Austria
tel: +43 (1) 4277 38037, fax: + 43 (1) 4277 38034,
e-mail: petra.riefler@univie.ac.at.
1
Globalization Attitude, Global Consumption Orientation and Global Brand
Perceptions
Abstract:
Global brands and their benefits for companies and consumers have been of vital
interest in recent research. Lately, however, some critical voices have challenged the
assumption that globalness automatically equates with consumer preference. Indeed, negative
stances towards economic globalization are persistent within some consumer segments, which
consequently can affect the acceptance and success of global brands. Extant marketing
literature however falls short in explaining negative attitudes towards global brands as well as
empirically investigating the influence of globalization attitudes on global brands. Against
this background, this study aims at (1) examining the relationship between globalization
attitude and global consumption orientation, (2) investigating a set of consumer characteristics
as potential antecedents for both constructs, and (3) estimating the influence of both
constructs on brand evaluations, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions of actual global
brands.
Keywords: globalization attitude, GCO, global brands
2
Introduction
Since the early 1980s, marketing literature has highlighted the homogenization of
consumer needs and desires across the globe (Levitt, 1983). This idea consequently suggests
the development of global markets which companies can address with a single product or
service (Keillor et al., 2001). In line with this perspective, many multinational companies
have altered their brand portfolios in favor of global brands during the last decades
(Steenkamp et al., 2003; Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004). From a corporate perspective, key
motivations for launching global brands are (a) the exploration of economy of scale effects
(Yip, 1995), (b) the acceleration of time to market for innovations (Neff, 1999), and (c) the
creation of a global image (Kapferer 1997).
From a consumer perspective, extant literature focuses primarily on conceptualizing
and operationalizing global consumers. In this vein, Alden et al. (2006, p. 228) introduced the
concept of global consumption orientation (GCO), which describes a set of “attitudinal
responses to the global diffusion on consumption choices”. Steenkamp and de Jong
(forthcoming) use a similar approach by proposing the concepts of general attitudes towards
global brands (AGP) and local brands (ALP). Both, Alden et al. (2006) as well as Steenkamp
and Jong (forthcoming), distinguish four attitudinal responses of consumers to global brands.
These responses comprise (1) a conscious opt for global alternatives (i.e. homogenization),
(2) the avoidance of local brands in favor of local alternatives (i.e. localization), (3) the
purchase of both global as well as local brands (i.e. glocalization), or (4) no interest in cultural
themes of products (i.e. alienation).
3
In terms of explaining why consumers show differing attitudes towards global brands,
literature however provides only limited insights. Consumers holding a positive AGP tend to
be innovative, educated and to score high on Schwartz’ (1992) values of power and
universalism (Steenkamp & de Jong, forthcoming). Based on Alden et al.’s (2006) study,
global consumers adhere to materialism and are not susceptible to normative influence.
Moreover, both studies find an impact of consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987)
on global brand attitudes. The pattern of this influence however differs; while consumer
ethnocentrism directly impacts AGP in Steenkamp and de Jong’s (forthcoming) study, it
mediates the influence of GCO on brand attitudes in Alden et al.’s (2006) study. Beyond these
insights, extant marketing literature fails to provide comprehensive knowledge on antecedents
of consumers’ global consumption orientation and their consequences for consumption
patterns across different product categories (Alden et al., 2006; Cleveland et al., 2009).
One such potential driver of consumers’ attitudes towards global brands is their
attitude towards economic globalization per se. Targeting globalization as an object of protest
is indeed widespread (Holton & Phillips, 2001). For consumers who take a negative stance
towards economic globalization, global brands can symbolize cultural homogenization and
power of global companies (Holt, 2002). For these consumers, brand globalness stands for
crushing local competition and homogenizing local cultures (Thompson et al., 2006).
Considering this meaning transfer of meaning, it is to assume that global brands can either be
associated with benefits or drawbacks of the ongoing globalization (Bauer et al., 2006).
Empirically, Dimofte et al. (2008) provide first evidence for a positive link between
consumers’ attitude towards economic globalization and their attitude towards brand
globalness. Their study was, however, referred to ‘global brand’ in a generic term rather than
using real brand names. Moreover, they examined global brand attitudes only, rather than
4
including (managerially relevant) outcomes of brand evaluations and purchase intentions (as,
for example, suggested by Öszomer and Altaras).
Against this background, our study builds upon the idea that globalization attitude is a
decisive factor for the perception of global brands and aims at advancing current knowledge
on this relationship. In particular, the present study aims at (1) examining the relationship
between attitude towards economic globalization and global consumption orientation, (2)
investigating a set of consumer characteristics as potential drivers for both constructs, and (3)
testing the influence of both constructs on brand evaluations, brand attitudes, and purchase
intentions of actual global brands.
In the following, we first provide a brief conceptual background of the focal
constructs. In a next step, we introduce the theoretical model and derive hypotheses. This is
followed by a description of the study design and a presentation of key results. These results
are subsequently discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary and endeavors for
future research.
Conceptual Background
According to consumer culture theory, individuals in today’s postmodern world define
and orient their core identities in relation to consumption (Holt, 2002). At the same time,
consumers experience a mélange of local culture(s) and globalization influences, which
renders localism and globalism to the “tow axial principles of our age” (Tomlinson, 1999, p.
90). Globalization refers to the “process of reducing barriers between countries and
encouraging closer economic, political, and personal interaction” (Spears et al., 2004, p. 57).
Consumers take various stances towards this development, and attitudes may range from proglobe to anti-globe (Dimofte et al., 2008). In our study, we will particularly focus on
5
economic globalization including the free movement of capital, products and labor, since we
operate in a consumption-specific context.
Global consumption orientation (Alden et al., 2006) is conceptualized as a set of
attitudes. Attitudes describe responses“in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with
respect to a given object” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 6). GCO describes a set of such
responses to global product/service offerings and relates to the self-concepts of individuals,
that is aspiring to global citizenship or adhering to local customs and traditions. GCO is a
consumption-specific concept, in which it differentiates from globalization attitudes which are
generalized attitudes. Alden et al. (2006) operationalize GCO as specific to product categories
(i.e., lifestyle, entertainment, furnishings, and clothing). For this study, we use lifestyle as
consumption domain as it is the broadest category and comprises many consumption-related
aspects.
Model Hypotheses
Figure 1 depicts the proposed theoretical model, which comprises (a) globalization
attitude and GCO as focal constructs, (b) potential drivers of globalization attitude and GCO,
and (c) brand-related outcome variables. The antecedents include variables associated with
national attachment (consumer cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism), psychological
variables (consumer innovativeness, risk aversion) and demographic variables (sex, age,
education, location). As outcome variables, three key variables of consumer behavior are
modeled, i.e. brand evaluation, brand attitude, and purchase intention. Finally, the model
incorporates brand familiarity as a control variable for the brand-related outcomes. In the
following, the key hypotheses are briefly outlined.
6
Insert Figure 1 about here
Cosmopolitan consumers are “open-minded individual[s] whose consumption
orientation transcends any particular culture, locality or community and who appreciate[]
diversity including trying products and services from a variety of countries” (Riefler &
Diamantopoulos, 2009, p. 415). Sociology literature shows that the acceptance of foreign
cultures and traditions is a key driver of attitudes towards globalization (Beck & Sznaider,
2006). Moreover, the consumption of global brands constitutes a vehicle to enhance the
cosmopolitan self-concept (Thompson & Tambyah, 1999). In line with this argument, Alden
et al. (2006) find that consumers with positive GCO hold higher levels of cosmopolitanism.
H1a: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts globalization attitude.
H1b: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts GCO.
Consumer ethnocentrism, which represents “consumer beliefs about the
appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products” (Shimp & Sharma,
1987, p. 280), is a key characteristic on an individual consumer level for explaining attitudes
towards domestic and foreign brands (for a review, see Shankarmahesh, 2004). Since
ethnocentric consumers are concerned about to the domestic economy, they would
consequently not be identified as global consumers (Keillor et al., 2001). Instead, they should
avoid global brand originating from other countries (Öszomer & Altaras, 2008). Steenkamp
and de Long (forthcoming) find a positive influence of CET on their AGP construct, whereas
Alden et al. (2006) report a mediating effect of CET on global brand attitudes. Conceptually,
we expect CET to drive attitudes towards globalization and global consumption. Additionally,
we will test alternative models specifying CET as moderator and mediator, respectively.
H2a: Consumer ethnocentrism negatively impacts globalization attitude.
7
H2b: Consumer ethnocentrism negatively impacts GCO.
Consumer innovativeness describes a “predisposition to buy new and different
products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and consumer patterns”
(Steenkamp et al., 1999, p. 671). Innovative consumers search for new consumption
experiences to fulfill their need for change (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003). Since globalization
is strongly associated with the homogenization of consumption (Holt, 2002; Thompson et al.,
2006), the reduction of the choice set is a consequence in the long run. Consequently, we
expect consumers in favor of diversity in their consumption experience not to be in favor of
globalized brand portfolios. This expectation is in strong opposition to Steenkamp and de
Jong’s (forthcoming) argument on a positive relation of innovativeness and global
consumption, which they base on the image of modernity and progress of global brands.
H3a: Consumer innovativeness is negatively related to globalization attitude.
H3b: Consumer innovativeness is negatively related to GCO.
Signaling theory proposes that global brands enjoy lower perceived risk as brand
globalness signals brand quality (Erdem & Swait, 1998). In other words, consumers who are
risk averse should appreciate global brands and hence exhibit a global consumption
orientation. In terms of globalization attitude, this argument seems less tenable and we do not
expect any particular influence of risk aversion.
H4a: Risk aversion has no influence on globalization attitude.
H4b: Risk aversion positively impacts GCO.
Consumers holding positive attitudes towards the economic globalization should
consequently be more oriented towards global products. The conceptual distinctiveness has
8
been discussed earlier in the paper; statistical investigation of the discriminant validity will be
provided later in the paper.
H5: Globalization attitude positively impacts GCO.
Marketing literature provides a number of studies that show a positive impact of
perceived globalness on perceived quality (e.g., Steenkamp et al., 2003; Holt et al., 2004). We
expect that this pattern is influenced by globalization attitudes, i.e. consumers who are
positive about globalization hold more positive product perceptions of global brands than
others. For the GCO construct, to our best knowledge, literature provides no studies on its
impact on global brand evaluation. Since GCO implies a preference for global brands, we
expect that brand evaluation to be positively influenced.
H6: Globalization attitude positively impacts global brand evaluation.
H7: GCO positively impacts global brand evaluation.
In line with the belief-attitude-behavior model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), positive
relationships from brand evaluation to brand attitude as well as from brand attitude to
purchase intentions are expected. Additionally, a direct effect of age on all brand-related
variables is included, as age is relevant for some of the focal product categories (see next
section).
Methodology
We used a survey-based design for investigating the model presented in Figure 1. To
assess GCO, we used Alden et al.’s (2006) forced-choice measure for consumer lifestyles. All
other constructs were measured on 7-point Likert scale formats with 1=do not agree at all and
9
7=fully agree. For attitude towards globalization, we used five items from Spears et al.
(2004), consumer ethnocentrism was measured using the short 10-item CETSCALE version
(Shimp & Sharma, 1987), consumer cosmopolitanism was measured on a 12-item scale based
on Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009), for consumer innovativeness we used Baumgartner
and Steenkamp’s (1996) scale, and for risk aversion Donthu and Garcia’s scale. Moreover, we
assessed brand evaluation on 4 items from Parameswaran and Pishoardi’s scale (1994), global
brand attitude based on Alden et al. (2006), and finally intention to buy based on Klein et al.
(1998) and Petrevu and Lord (1994). The questionnaire furthermore included demographic
variables (gender, age, education, residential area) and control variables, that is perceived
brand globalness (Batra et al., 2000) and brand familiarity (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). A pre-test
with ten consumers using the protocol approach (Diamantopoulos & Reynolds, 1998) ensured
that all items were comprehensible and no difficulties in answering occurred.
The selection of brands was identical to Alden et al.’s (2006) study and included
brands with (a) differing levels of product category involvement, and (b) differing importance
of hedonic versus utilitarian characteristics. The four brands included in the study were (1)
Coke (low involvement/hedonic), (2) Colgate (low involvement/utilitarian), (3) Sony (high
involvement/hedonic), and (4) Whirlpool (high involvement/utilitarian). We selected Austria
as research setting as the country ranks second in the KOF globalization index worldwide
(http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/) but, at the same time, is among the most critical against
economic globalization (News, 2007).
For data collection, we applied an area sampling procedure (e.g., Lohr 1999) of zip
code areas with quotas for sex, education and location (i.e., metropolitan vs. rural) and then
randomly chose an equal number of zip codes from each area. A total of 5,900 households in
these pre-selected zip code areas were then targeted with the questionnaire together with a
cover letter soliciting participation and a pre-paid envelope for returning the questionnaire. In
10
total, we received 442 completed questionnaires; after excluding questionnaires due to
missing values, the sample used for analysis comprised 429 consumers; 58 percent were
females, the average age was 46.6 years (range: 13 to 93 years), and 60 percent lived in a rural
area. A sample of 429 consumers was collected by applying
In a first step, we estimated a reduced model of Figure 1 including globalization
attitude, GCO and the antecedent variables in order to investigate the drivers of the focal
constructs. In a second step, we estimated the full model for each brand separately to
investigate the impact of the focal constructs on brand-related variables. In a third step, we
estimated a number of alternative models for comparison. We ran all estimations using
LISREL 8.80 and will present the findings in the following.
Findings
The reduced model showed satisfactory model fit (χ2 = 344.28 (d.f. = 235); RMSEA =
.053; SRMR = .060; NNFI = .939; CFI = .952). With regard to the antecedents of
globalization attitude, results show a positive and significant impact of consumer
cosmopolitanism (in support of H1a) and a negative and significant impact of consumer
innovativeness (in support of H3a). In contrast, consumer ethnocentrism fails to show any
significant impact on GCO; thus rejecting H2a. As expected in H4a, risk aversion also shows
no influence on globalization attitude. Furthermore, none of the demographic variables
included in the model show any significant impact on globalization attitude. In total, the
antecedent variables explained 19% of variance in globalization attitude.
With regard to GCO, results show a negative and significant influence of consumer
innovativeness (in support of H3b) and education. As expected in H5, a positive and
significant impact of globalization attitude on GCO was revealed. Apart from these variables,
11
all other antecedent variables were non-significant. Hence, consumer ethnocentrism again
failed to show any important impact (thus rejecting H2b). Against our expectation in H4b,
risk aversion was not found to drive GCO. Finally, GCO showed to be independent of sexes,
ages and location. In total, the antecedent variables explained 22% of variance in GCO.
Turning attention to the relationship between globalization attitude and GCO, results
showed the expected positive link from the former to the latter construct and distinct
antecedents. In terms of discriminant validity (Netemeyer et al., 2003), the construct intercorrelation is low (.23, p<.01) and statistically supports the conceptual distinctiveness of the
constructs. For additional evidence, we modeled the single measure of GCO as an indicator of
globalization attitudes in a CFA. This approach did only explain .09% of the indicator
variance and therefore provides further support for discriminant validity.
Subsequently, we estimated the full model in Figure 1, which yielded good overall fit
for all brands (see Table 1). Referring to the effects of globalization attitude and GCO on
global brand evaluations, findings provide partial support for H6. While showing a positive
impact of globalization attitude on brand evaluation for all four brands, this impact proves to
be significant for only two brands (Coke, Whirlpool). GCO, in contrast, shows a positive and
significant impact on the brand evaluation of Coke but not for any other brand; thus only
partly supporting H7.
In line with the belief-attitude-behavior model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), positive and
significant relationships from brand evaluation to brand attitude as well as from brand attitude
to purchase intention are found for all brands. Moreover, brand familiarity positively impacts
brand evaluation for all brands and brand attitude for the high-involvement brands (Sony and
Whirlpool). Finally, age has direct negative effects on brand evaluations for the hedonic
brands (Coke, Sony) as well as purchase intentions for Sony.
Insert Table 1 about here
12
Overall, the model in Figure 1 explains considerable proportions of variance in brand
attitudes and purchase intentions across brands (see Table 2). Comparing the amounts of
variance explained within the low-involvement (Coke versus Colgate) and high-involvement
(Sony versus Whirlpool) categories respectively, reveals higher explanatory power for the
hedonistic products (Coke, Sony) than for the utilitarian products (Colgate, Whirlpool).
Insert Table 2 about here
In a third step, we estimated a series of alternative models which are theoretically
sensible. The first set of models included direct effects of globalization attitude and GCO on
(1) brand attitude (as suggested by Dimofte et al., 2008), (2) purchase intention, and (3) both.
The second set of models included direct effects of (1) consumer ethnocentrism and (2)
consumer cosmopolitanism on brand evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention
(consumer ethnocentrism is usually found to influence perceptions of foreign vs. domestic
products, see Shimp and Sharma, 1987). None of these models showed significant direct
effects or better model fit than the proposed model in Figure 1. Additionally, alternative
models specifying CET as moderator variable (from GCO on brand evaluation) or mediator
variables (from GCO on brand attitude, see Alden et al., 2006) should be estimated. Due to
time restrictions, this could not be done for this conference paper but will be presented in the
conference presentation.
Discussion
We find that consumer cosmopolitanism and consumer innovativeness are key drives
of individuals’ attitude towards economic globalization. This general attitude towards
13
economic globalization in turn influences consumers’ global consumption orientation. In this
context, consumers who are open towards free exchange of goods, capital and labor orient
their consumption choices in favor of global offerings. At the other end, consumers with
unfavorable attitudes towards these developments orient their product choices towards local
offerings. Besides from globalization attitudes, GCO is negatively driven by consumer
innovativeness and education. Importantly, our findings on consumer innovativeness diverge
from Steenkamp and de Jong’s (forthcoming) finding that innovative consumers fulfill their
need for modernity and progress by consuming global products. Our theoretical reasoning
takes a different road, as we expected the negative impact based on diversity restrictions due
to global homogenization as a result of globalizing brands. Given those diverging results,
more empirical and conceptual work on this relationship is needed.
Consumer ethnocentrism failed to explain globalization attitudes and GCO as a direct
antecedent variable.. Since consumer ethnocentrism is of vital importance in forming attitudes
towards foreign and local products and services, it might impact brand-specific attitudes on
global offerings (in particular, if equated with foreignness as in the presented study) rather
than globalization attitude or GCO. We will address this by estimating alternative models
specifying CET as moderator variable (from GCO on brand evaluation) or mediator variables
(from GCO on brand attitude, see Alden et al., 2006) for the present sample.
The general construct of globalization attitude was conceptually and empirically
delineated from the consumption-domain specific construct of GCO. Furthermore, the
constructs show distinct antecedents (as discussed above) as well as impacts on global brands.
Consistently, both constructs do not show to directly influence global brand attitudes and
intention to buy. Instead, globalization attitude showed to positively impact global brand
evaluations, which in turn impact attitudes and purchase intentions. This finding is in support
of the signaling effect of globalness on perceived product quality (Erdem & Swait, 1998).
14
GCO, on the other hand, showed only in one (Coke) of four brands significant and positive
impact on brand evaluation, for the remaining brands GCO failed to explain brand evaluation.
This lack of causal relationship might be partly caused by the operationalization of GCO
using Alden et al.’s (2006) lifestyle domain.
Comparing results for the four investigated brands, the proposed model yields more
explanatory power for the hedonistic global brands than for the utilitarian global brands. The
underlying purchase processes might be one reason for this pattern. For hedonic products with
limited information search, and especially with the consumption goal of diversity,
globalization attitudes and GCO might be of more importance in attitude building than for
utilitarian products, for which cognitive motifs - that are not included in the current model –
might be stronger drivers. To examine whether this difference in product type is systematic,
research on a larger set of global brands is needed.
Conclusion & Directions for Future Research
The contribution of this study is three-fold. First, a set of potentially relevant drivers of
globalization attitude and GCO is examined revealing the importance of consumer
cosmopolitanism, consumer innovativeness and education, whereas the heavily researched
consumer ethnocentrism construct fails to explain globalization attitudes and GCO. Second,
the constructs of globalization attitude and GCO are delineated. Third, a potential impact of
globalization attitude is shown to be mediated by brand evaluations rather than directly
influencing brand attitude or behavioral intentions. Including both, globalization attitude and
GCO into a model shows that GCO in the majority of cases fails to explain global brand
perceptions.
Regarding future research, a number of potential directions can be identified. First,
using the selected set of antecedents we can explain around 20% of variance in globalization
15
attitude and GCO, respectively. Previous studies additionally revealed materialism, SNI and
Schwartz’ (1992) values of power and universalism as important drives. As it appears, there
are further drivers of globalization attitude and GCO, which have not been revealed yet. A
more holistic profile of consumers positive or negative towards global brands would be
valuable for managerial implementation of segmenting global versus local consumers.
Second, and related to the previous point, theoretical investigation on the attitude of
innovative consumers towards global brands needs more elaboration. Current views as well as
empirical results diverge. Up to now, it is unclear whether innovative consumers search for
global brands due to their modern and sophisticated image, or whether they are in disfavor of
global brands due to their lack of diverse experiences.
Third, future research should extend the presented model to a larger set of hedonic and
utilitarian brands in order to see whether the model is more suited to hedonic brands as
suggested by our results. If so, additional aspects relevant for consumers’ attitudes towards
utilitarian global brands need to be considered.
Finally, Steenkamp and de Jong (forthcoming) introduce the concepts of AGP and
ALP, which build on Alden et al.’s GCO measure and capture “generalized attitude across a
wide range of product categories” (Steenkamp & de Jong, forthcoming, emphasis in the
original). The problem with Alden et al.’s (2006) category-specific conceptualization might
thereby be overcome. Future research should investigate the relation of globalization attitudes
and these new concepts.
16
References
Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B., & Batra, R. (2006). Consumer Attitudes toward marketplace
globalization: Structure, Antecendents and Consequences. International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 23(3), 227-239.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Unterstanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. (1996). Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior:
Conceptualization and Measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2),
121-137.
Bauer, H.H., Exler, S., & Bronk, L. (2006) Brands – The more global the better? The 2006
Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference Proceedings,
Brisbane, Australien.
Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a
research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1-22.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, Consumer
Ethnocentrism, and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes.
Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116-146.
17
Diamantopoulos, A., & Reynolds, N. (1998). The effect of pretest method on error detection
rates: Experimental evidence, European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 480-498.
Dimofte, C.V., Johannson, J.K., & Ronkainen, I.A. (2008). Cognitive and Affective Reactions
of U.S. Consumers to Global Brands. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 113-135.
Donthu, N., & Garcia, A. (1999). The Internet Shopper. Journal of Advertising Research,
93(3), 52-58.
Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.
Holt, D.B. (2002). Why do brand cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and
branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.
Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A., & Taylor, E.L. (2004). How Global Brands Compete. Harvard
Business Review, 82(9), 68-81.
Holten, R., & Phillips, T. (2002). Popular attitudes to globalisation. Policy, Organisation and
Society, 21(2), 5-21.
Kapferer, J.N. (1997). Strategic Brand Management (2nd edition), Dover, NH: Kogan Page.
Keillor, B.D., D’Amico, M. & Horton, V. (2001). Global Consumer Tendencies. Psychology
& Marketing, 18(1), 1-19.
18
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The Animosity Model of Foreign Product
Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1),
89-100.
Levitt, T. (1983). The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 39-49.
Lohr, S. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. CA: Duxbury.
Neff, J. (1999). P&G and Unilever’s giant headaches. Advertising Age, 70, 22-28.
Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S., & Lichtenstein, D.R. (1991). A Cross-National Assessment of
the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 320327.
News (2007). Österreicher sehen Globalisierung kritisch.
http://www.news.at/articles/0725/30/176580/oesterreicher-globalisierung-ca-50-begriff
[access: 22.03.2010]
Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis
and an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1-28.
Petrevu, S., & Lord, K.R. (1994). Comparative and non-comparative advertising: attitudinal
effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising,
23(June), 77-90.
19
Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and
Replication of the CYMYC Scale. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 407-419.
Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.N. (2004). Executive Insights: Real Differences between Local
and International Brands: Strategic Implications for International Marketers. Journal of
International Marketing, 12(4), 97-112.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances
and empirical tests in 20 countries, in: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, Mark
Zanna, ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1-65.
Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2004). Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Integrative Review of Its
Antecedents and Consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146-172.
Shimp, T., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of
the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(1), 280-289.
Spears, M. C., Parker, D. F., & McDonald, M. (2004).Globalization attitudes and locus of
control. Journal of Global Business, 15(29), 57–64.
Steenkamp, J.B., & de Jong, M.G. (forthoming). A global investigation into the constellation
of consumer attitudes toward global and local products. Journal of Marketing (in press).
Steenkamp, J.B., Batra R., & Alden, D.L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates
brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.
20
Steenkamp, J. B., & Gielsen, K. (2003). Consumer and market drivers oft the trial rate of new
consumer products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 368-384.
Steenkamp, J. B., Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. A. (1999). A cross-national comparison into the
national and cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2),
55-69.
Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional Branding and the Strategic
Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.
Thompson, C., & Tambyah, S. K. (1999). Trying to be Cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer
Research, 26(3), 214-241.
Yip, G.S. (1995). Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21
Figure 1: Global Brand Model
22
Table 1: Overall Model Fit
Coke
Colgate
Sony
Whirlpool
CHI-SQUARE
617.75
648,57
664.85
653.79
RMSEA
.043
.048
.048
.047
NNFI
.944
.937
.939
.946
CFI
.953
.948
.949
.954
23
Table 2: Variance Explained
Coke
Colgate
Sony
Whirlpool
R2
Brand Evaluation
.36
.16
.21
.09
R2
Brand Attitude
.79
.59
.68
.58
R2
Purchase Intention
.78
.50
.56
.48