Consumer Xenocentrism: An Alternative Explanation for
Foreign Product Bias
Rene Dentiste Mueller* and Amanda J. Broderick**
One of the concerns of international marketers is whether the
"foreignness" of a product makes it more or less preferable to
consumers in different countries. Previous research has focused
on more cognitively-based biases of national identity stereotypes,
however, affectively-based biases related to prejudice may
provide greater explanatory power of foreign product bias. This
article applies the socio-psychological concept of xenocentrism
(Kent and Burnight 1951) to the consumer sphere and argues
that consumer xenocentrism (CX) serves as an intervening
mechanism that bias some consumers to foreign products or
brands even when domestic ones are qualitatively or functionally
similar or better. CX offers an alternative way of examining and
understanding foreign product bias; it also raises several
important questions for international marketing strategy and
opens many interesting avenues for future research.
Keywords: xenocentrism, ethnocentrism, national identity, consumer behavior, emerging
markets
Introduction
Research shows that a member’s identification with the national group strongly shapes
attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about one’s self and others as well as one’s behavior including consumer behavior (Balabanis et al., 2001). Traditionally, national identity
literature has focused on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility or derogation (i.e.
ethnocentrism); a similar trend can be seen in the marketing and, more generally, in the
business literature (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Despite the interest and attention
received concerning theories related to consumer perceptions, attitudes, and buying
intentions with regard to a product’s country of origin, our understanding of this area of
research is still incomplete and there have been continued calls for further research. In
particular, researchers have argued the need to: examine this area from multiple
perspectives; study the conditions and context which influence consumers’ attitudes,
perceptions and buying behavior; and to consider the role of affect in the decision to
___________________________________
*Rene Dentiste Mueller, Ph.D., Associate Professor and Director of International Business, School of
Business and Economics, College and University of Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
**Amanda J. Broderick, Ph.D., Professor of Marketing and Advertising, Coventry University Business
School, UK., Priory Street, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK, E-mail: amanda.broderick@coventry.ac.uk
purchase foreign or domestic products (e.g. Amine et al., 2005; Peterson and Joulibert,
1995; Amine et al., 1993).
Surprisingly little research, has been devoted to out-group favoritism and in-group
derogation, termed xenocentrism (Kent and Burnight, 1951). In the consumer sphere,
consumer xenocentrism (CX) appears to result in a preference for foreign products even
when domestic products are qualitatively and/or functionally similar or better. Evidence
of CX in different national settings suggests that the phenomenon is universal (Zhou and
Hui, 2003; Khanna, 2001; Batra et al., 2000), however, consumer xenocentrics appear
to be found in proportionally larger numbers in emerging market countries (Ger and
Belk, 1996), which might explain why this phenomenon has received little attention.
Importantly, the theoretical concept of consumer xenocentrism provides an alternative
framework for understanding and interpreting previously documented consumer
behaviors and demonstrates why suggested marketing strategies, which have tended to
focus on improving product quality or image, may not work. This paper presents a
theoretical review of the major contributions to the socio-psychological literature that
conceptualize xenocentrism. A conceptual framework, applying xenocentrism to the
consumer sphere is developed, together with the context and conditions under which it
is likely to operate. Past research findings are then reinterpreted within this framework
to provide an alternative explanation of foreign product bias with greater explanatory
power. A summary of previous findings and research questions left unanswered provide
researchers with several avenues for further research.
Theoretical Background
National Identity
In marketing, there have been several studies on national identity and consumption;
however, most have concentrated on demonstrating how consumers express their
ethnic identity through product purchase and consumption (e.g. Halter, 2000;
Hirschman, 1981). In terms of national identity and in-group/out-group research, the
focus has been overwhelmingly on exploration of in-group biases e.g. consumer
ethnocentrism (Shimp, 1983; Shimp and Sharma, 1987), consumer patriotism (Han,
1988; Frank, 1999), and consumer animosity (Klein, 2002; Klein et al., 1998). More
recently, attempts have been made at understanding a more general openness to
foreign products (Cannon and Yaprak, 2002; Douglas et al., 2000; Balabanis et al.,
2000). This stream of research, however, is in its infancy.
To date there has been little attention given to consumers who have out-group
orientations (foreign preferences) and in-group derogation. That is not to say that such
behavior has not been well-documented. A stream of country-of-origin research has
documented instances where consumers demonstrate a bias for foreign products and
against domestic ones (e.g. Zhou and Hui, 2003; Batra et al., 2000; Ger, 1999; Batra,
1997; Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Li et al., 1997; Belk, 1985; Okechuku and Onyemah, 1999;
Lall and Streeten, 1977). This phenomenon has most often been explained in terms of
negative country of origin image and stereotyping about product quality or features
(Peterson and Jolibert, 1995; Samiee, 1994; Maheswaran, 1994; Papadopoulos and
Heslop, 1993; Tse and Lee, 1993; Roth and Romeo, 1992; Johansson and Nebenahl,
1986; Bilkey and Nes, 1982).
Country of origin stereotyping, however, taps mostly the cognitive component of national
identity (what we know or believe we know about the quality of the product or products
emanating from foreign countries). Consumer xenocentrism, like consumer
ethnocentrism, patriotism, and animosity, taps mostly the affective component of
national identity (emotional attachment, intensity of attachment, sense of belonging,
importance place on membership, commitment to nation, etc). Cognition is most often
associated with stereotypes, however, attitudes and prejudice are typically shown to be
associated with affect (Banaji, 2002).
Though there is a mutual interrelationship
between affective and cognitive components, cognition and affect are conceptually
separable and, though closely associated, they are not necessarily fully congruent
(Brewer and Kramer, 1985). Indeed, throughout the psychological literature, the
behavioral effects of the cognitive component have been shown to be mediated by the
concomitant affective component (Walker and Pettigrew, 1984). Johansson (1988) and
Johansson et al. (1985) have used the example of Jewish consumers’ high evaluation of
German products but reluctance to buy as an example of the affective component
overriding the cognitive one. Research on consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp and
Sharma, 1987) and consumer animosity (Klein et al., 1998) show similar results.
In much of the business literature, researchers have tended to focus on the cognitive
aspects of foreign product preferences and have given very little attention to the
affective aspects; this is a critical omission. Okechku and Onyemah (1999) noted in
their study on Nigeria that the ever-present desire to be seen wearing, driving, or using
foreign products meant that local manufacturers there were no further ahead even when
they invested in improving product quality. Consequently, if consumer xenocentrism is
prevalent, the challenges for domestic producers would be greater than merely
overcoming quality concerns, giving price reductions and/or changing promotional
strategies.
Xenocentrism
Most national identity research has been centered on nationalism and other in-group
biases, however, early on Kent and Burnight (1951) noted that there were those who are
nationals of one group but who psychologically and emotionally identify with a foreign
group. The authors went on to define xenocentrics as those who “prefer a society other
than their own and who rate and scale everything in reference to it and not their own”
(Kent and Burnight, 1951; p.256). The authors emphasized xenocentrics do not simply
have an out-group bias, there is also a corresponding derogation or hostility of their ingroup; in contrast to ethnocentrics who see national virtues where none exist,
xenocentrics see faults where none exist (p.257).
A number of important early researchers also describe the concept without using the
xenocentric term. Fishbein (1963), for example, termed those oriented negatively
towards their own (national) group as “autonomous non-members“; Singer and Radloff
(1963) called them “renegades”; “alienated” is the term used by DeLamter et al. (1969);
and in Geutzhow's (1955) book, these members are termed “disaffected nationals”.
After reviewing twenty years of Latin American research findings, Montero (1986)
applied the term ‘altercentrism’ to describe the widespread and consistent overevaluation of the U.S. culture and under-evaluation of Latin Americans’ own. Swartz
(1961) similarly describes the great esteem for a foreign material culture and the poor
evaluation of one's own as “negative ethnocentrism”. Indeed, Hyman and Singer
(1968), in their seminal anthology of reference group readings, summarize that ordinary
language is rich in terms used to describe individuals who are positively oriented to an
out-group and negatively oriented to their own group; however, neither the authors nor
their colleagues offered a collective term to describe the particular phenomenon.
Though identified over fifty years ago, the study of xenocentrism remains underresearched and disjointed despite it being detailed throughout the social sciences in a
number of national settings; a similar trend can be seen in the marketing literature. This
is somewhat surprising as much of the theoretical research, though conducted within a
socio-political psychology orientation, has often used members’ preference for foreign
products and the material culture of other countries as examples of xenocentric behavior
(e.g. Kent and Burnight, 1951; Swartz, 1961; Montero, 1986; Beirstecker, 1978; Barber,
1996; Lall and Streeten, 1977; James, 1993; Aleksic, 2002).
The Socio-psychological Explanation of Xenocentrism
Over the last several decades, social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), including
theories on self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965), collective self-esteem (Luhtanen and
Crocket, 1992), reference group (Merton and Rossi, 1950; Hyman and Singer, 1968),
counter-culture (Roszak, 1970), and relative deprivation (Runciman, 1966) have been
used by researchers worldwide across disciplines to explain in-group and out-group
orientations and behaviors; these theories have also been applied fruitfully to explain
national identity phenomena. Within this context, a parsimonious explanation for
xenocentric behavior is that all individuals strive for positive self-image (esteem). While
self-esteem is dependent on a number of psychological and environmental factors, a
significant proportion of one’s self-esteem derives from group membership, the status of
one's in-group, and (favorable) inter-group comparisons. The more positive the feelings
about one’s group (one’s collective self-esteem), the higher one’s personal self-esteem.
On an individual level, low personal self-esteem can result in personal attempts to
overcome such feelings by becoming obsessive with status and power and overidentification with the national group (Rokeach and Restle, 1960). When the status of a
member’s own group is low, members may feel frustrated and, most commonly,
members will restrict inter-group comparisons to lower status groups or seek to leave
the group and join higher status groups i.e. “pass”; less frequently members of the group
will also collectively protest their relative deprivation (Grant and Brown, 1995).
Importantly, members value group loyalty and favorable attachment to the group and
those that question or challenge the group’s values are considered deviant and disloyal
(Druckman, 1994).
Reference group theory (e.g. Merton and Rossi, 1950; Hyman and Singer, 1968) has
consistently demonstrated that an individual’s attitudes are often related to or anchored
in one or more social groups, including out-groups (Kelley, 1968). In forming attitudes,
several groups may be employed, each with limited jurisdiction over some specialized
attitude sphere; rarely does one group become the referent for all values of aspiration
(Eisenstadt, 1968). A superior rating for a foreign country on some specific trait,
therefore, does not necessarily mean that there is a general devaluation of all domestic
traits (Kent and Burnight, 1951; Swartz, 1961). Swartz’s (1961) research, for example,
found that the devaluation of one’s own country’s material culture and the
overestimation of that of a foreign culture did not necessarily extend to a general
devaluation of all domestic traits; consequently, there are no “ideal” or “pure”
xenocentric types (Kent and Burnight, 1951).
Kent and Burnight (1951) describe several different types of xenocentrics: the aesthete
who completely abandons his own native culture for foreign ways which he may know
little about; first generation nationals (normally immigrants) who reject their native
culture for their new national culture; and some second and third generation progeny
who idealize the land of their forefathers and set up the culture as the supreme arbiter
for all other cultures. The authors hypothesized that, in America, the number of
xenocentrics was relatively small. When originally conceptualized, the primary sources
of xenocentrism were thought to be: personal frustration at being rejected by the group;
social isolation because the individual is unable to feel a part of the group; or inferior
social position within the group (Kent and Burnight, 1951). According to DeLamter et al.
(1969) those negatively oriented to their own national group will often call for a “higher”
loyalty to some other system. Age may also be factor as Kent and Burnight (1951) note
that younger members often reject their own group as an expression of independence
and emancipation; though later in life it is normal for these members return to the group.
Research on counter-culture shows similar results (Roszak, 1970).
While some xenocentrism may draw attention to weak points in societal structure and
may be conductive to positive change, the continued functioning of society demands
that xenocentrism be kept to a minimum (Kent and Burnight, 1951). The person who
belongs in the group, but remains outside it, by his mere indifference and non-affiliation,
positively harms the group by reducing the power of the group and by threatening its
norms (Merton, 1957); this member also becomes a living symbol of the inferiority
imputed to the group. Indeed, Guetzkow (1955) argues that once the chain (of national
loyalty) is broken, there is a very rapid diminution of loyalty. Consequently, members
who derogate and distance themselves from the group in order to protect their personal
self-esteem, often do so at the expense of collective self-esteem (Tajfel and Turner,
1986).
Much of the national identity research has been conducted using high status (i.e.
economically advanced) nations. With lower status groups, comparisons favoring the ingroup might be difficult as these groups are inferior on many evaluative dimensions e.g.
wealth, educational achievement, etc.; positive inter-country comparisons would be
more difficult (Grant and Brown, 1995). Guetzkow (1961) describes some minor
evidence of this with regard to smaller, less powerful, and less prestigious nations. The
over-valuation of a foreign culture (usually Western) and corresponding under-valuation
of one’s own national culture is a common theme of essays dealing with the uneven
development of emerging market economies and, specifically, in essays pertaining to
colonization, dependency economics and cultural and/or media imperialism. A common
argument used in these studies is that colonization leads to a social psychology based
on presumed superiority of the colonizers and inferiority of the colonized where colonial
subjects have learned to internalize images, ideas, and traditions of the colonizing
country while disregarding or devaluing their own (e.g. Aleksic, 2002).
After reviewing a range of findings from Latin American research, Salazar (1983) did
uncover a pattern that suggests where socioeconomic and cultural development had
been conditioned by other more powerful nations, members had learned to compare and
devalue themselves. A similar mental conditioning has been described in Africa (Belk,
2000; Kier, 1992; Prah, 1999), the Caribbean (Lowenthal, 1972), and parts of Asia
(Gerth, 2003). Indeed, Kent and Burnight (1951) describe the Westernization of large
areas in the Far East, where members irrationally gave up parts of the own culture as
backward and imitated western ways, as typifying xenocentric behavior. Not all
xenocentrics, however, are members of low-status groups or non-western nations. Kent
and Burnight (1951) used the members of the American Communist Party being
irrational in their attachment for the Soviet Union as an example of xenocentrism.
Likewise, there is much in the literature about members from high status nations almost
completely identifying with other national groups. There are historical references, for
example, of missionaries, colonists, and other international travelers as “going
native”. From the historical literature, it is clear that this phenomenon was a known risk
when sending members abroad.
A Theoretical Framework
A Definition of Consumer Xenocentrism
In his seminal work, Sumner (1906) defined ethnocentrism as “a view of thing in which a
group other than one’s own is the center of everything, and all others, including one’s
own group, are scaled and rated with reference to it” and used the ethnocentrism
concept to explain favorable evaluations of the in-group and unfavorable ones of the
out-group.
Shimp and Sharma (1987) subsequently applied Sumner’s (1906)
ethnocentrism concept (and definition) to the consumer sphere to explain why some
consumer’s are biased towards domestic products (and against foreign ones) even
when foreign products are qualitatively similar or better. Kent and Burnight (1951)
originally noted that little attention had been devoted to the counterpart of ethnocentrism
and, by paralleling Sumner’s (1906) ethnocentrism definition, the authors developed
their own theory and definition of the xenocentrism concept to explain those who have
an out-group bias rather than an in-group one. Bowing to tradition, we build upon the
definitions and concepts developed by the aforementioned researchers to define a
consumer xenocentric as “a person who prefers products from a country (or region)
other than their own and who rates and scales products in reference to the foreign
country and not their own”. Consumer xenocentrism, we argue, can serve as an
intervening mechanism which results in a preference for foreign goods even when
domestic products are qualitatively similar or better.
Whether termed American, Western, or Global1, the bias for foreign products and
against domestic ones appears to be prevalent in many countries, especially emerging
market countries (e.g. Holt et al., 2004; Batra et al., 2000; Alden et al., 1999; Shein,
1999; Batra, 1997; Ger and Belk, 1996; Friedman, 1990; Sherry and Carmogo, 1987).
Bilkey and Nes (1982), for example, describe a Puerto Rican shoe manufacturer which
shipped its entire production to New York City and back and advertised those shoes as
being from New York because domestic consumers would more readily buy foreign
shoes than domestic; this situation, the authors argued, is widespread in developing
countries. Belk’s (1988) extensive research in emerging market countries shows that
western brand favoritism often supplants local products even when local products are
objectively superior in quality and lower in price.
The bias towards foreign products cannot always be credited to superior product
attributes or functionality; rather, consumer bias often results because foreign products
better represent an ideal or value with which a consumer can identify or aspire. In
particular, previous research suggests that many consumers, especially those in
emerging markets, are oriented to foreign products because of underlying sociopsychological factors that automatically accord statuses of prestige and/or modernity to
foreign countries and, by association, their products. In other cases, foreign product
bias may reflect an identification with political or economic ideals in opposition with ones
own national system (Howes, 1998; Drazin, 1991; Belk et al., 1982; Bar-Haim, 1987).
Importantly, consumer stereotypes about superior product quality of functionality cannot
fully account for foreign product bias; neither consumers’ fascination with novelty or
exotica explains this predisposition. Research findings, for example, show that foreign
products, even broken ones or ones that cannot be used because consumers lack the
knowledge or means (e.g. electricity) to use them are bought not for quality or
functionality but rather, it is their foreign-ness that conveys status (e.g. Philbert and
Jourdan, 1998; Ger and Belk, 1996). The popularity of low cost, low quality counterfeit
foreign brands, an important sector in many emerging markets, has been used by
James (1993) to demonstrate that foreign products are purchased for underlying social
reasons unrelated to quality or price.
Consumer Xenocentrism and Status
People often substantiate status by consuming a ‘style of life’ in agreement with or in
opposition to others (Hamilton, 1977; Weber, 1968). There is a significant amount of
research that suggests the purchase and consumption of foreign products or brands is a
socio-psychological phenomenon related to improving status and enhancing self-worth
(e.g. Batra et al., 2000; James, 1993; Friedman, 1990). Importantly, the fact that foreign
goods bestow such high social status to their possessors is significant because it tells
1
Frequently the literature references a consumer orientation on the much broader “Western” or “Global” consumer
culture. Indeed, the theme of a universal ‘Western” consumer culture is common throughout the literature even if, as
Sklair (1991) suggests, it is an inaccurate label because so many goods are from Japan or other Asian sources. The
term “global” suffers from the same sort of ambiguity since all of the “global” brands and products stem from the
same few wealthy regions (Hall 1992; Lall and Streeten 1977; Hamelink 1983; Bierstecker 1978). Despite the term
used, in many countries and studies, the term “western”, “global” or “foreign” is used as a direct contrast to
‘domestic”.
that what is most highly regarded originates outside of the country (Bar Haim, 1987). A
review of literature suggests that consumer xenocentrism may be more prevalent in
emerging markets and, especially, in former colonies. Many attribute this bias to the
legacy of the colonial experience and the socio-economic conditioning of the local elite
that has resulted in a poor self-image of their own country and over-identification with
the west (Gerth, 2003; Belk, 2000; Norberg-Hodge, 1999; Comarof, 1998). While most
often applied to contemporary emerging markets, Breen’s (1988) research demonstrates
that the American colonies encountered the same sort of conditioning.
The
phenomenon is so commonplace that Breen (1988) terms the standardization of taste in
colonies as “colonization of taste”; Bierstecker (1978) terms it “taste transfer”.
Some research suggests that socio-economic change may exacerbate consumer
xenocentrism. As Hamilton (1977) notes, changing socio-economic conditions can
increase uncertainty of one’s status and can accentuate the use of material symbols and
brand names to mark status. Heyman’s (1994) research suggests, for example, that
when societies move from having rigid social classes, popular classes use foreign
products as a visible referent that their social standing is changing (Heyman, 1994).
Gerth (2003) describes this phenomenon in China: once the imperial examination
system (the primary road to wealth, power, and status for one thousand years) was
abolished, Chinese consumers increasingly turned the consumption of foreign products
as a way to express and reinforce their social standing. According to Batra et al. (2000)
the same is true today; foreign product purchase allows those in contemporary emerging
markets to buy upward in the class system.
Importantly, this type of consumer xenocentrism cannot be explained fully by traditional
prestige-seeking consumer behavior (see Lester, 1999 for a review) or even
conspicuous consumption (Veblen, 1899) because the status accorded foreign goods is
not simply due to scarcity or high price (e.g. Bar Haim, 1987). Likewise, research has
also shown that the preference for foreign goods extends past those that are
conspicuously consumed (e.g. Zhou and Hui, 2003). Indeed, researchers have
documented the preference for a range of foreign goods preferred over qualitatively or
functionally similar or better domestic goods that are often less expensive such as
processed foods, infant food formula, toothpaste, cereals, clothing and footwear, soaps
and detergents, cosmetics, footwear, building materials, and pharmaceuticals (e.g.
James, 1993; Bierstecker, 1978; Norberg-Hodge, 1999; Sinclair, 1987; Bilkey and Nes,
1982).
Consumer Xenocentrism and Modernity
Consumer xenocentrism has also been attributed to the acquisition of a taste for modern
goods (Lozada, 2000; James, 1993; Alden et al., 1999; Van Eltern, 1996). In
descriptions of foreign product bias, the local material culture is often contrasted as
“backwards” (e.g. Garth, 2003; Classen, 1998; Hannerz, 1990). According to Ger and
Belk (1996) the "clash of foreign elegance and local roughness... between rusticity and
cosmopolitanism" is prevalent in many emerging countries and this attitude biases
members towards foreign products. In China, the decision of officials to reject the
Manchu-style dress in favor of Western-style dress was done because many believed
Manchu-style dress embodied China’s backwardness while Western-style dress was a
conspicuous symbol of modernity (Gerth, 2003). Though many Chinese argued that the
traditional dress was equal or superior in all objective aspects (protection from the
elements, comfort, modesty, and ornament) and better suited to the climate and life of
China, the government ultimately agreed with the local elite, foreign diplomats, and
students returning from studying abroad in rejecting traditional dress in favor of the
western-style. This type of rejection of traditional-style dress as backwards in favor of
Western dress can be seen in many Asian and African countries.
While there appears to be no generally accepted operational definition of modernity (see
Amer and Schnaiberg, 1972; McClelland, 1976), in the context of consumption, a review
of relevant literature suggests that the term ‘modernity’ or ‘becoming modern’ takes on
the symbolic meaning of rationalization, a more cosmopolitan view (rather than local), an
openness to technical change, a focus on individual wants and needs, and
independence from the traditional. Within this frame of reference, some have found that
there is a consumer group that buys foreign brands because they embody the political
and economic values of freedom and choice i.e. that foreign goods symbolize a system
tuned to the preference and needs of individuals (Gajendar et al., 2003; Howes, 1998;
Van Eltern, 1996; Bar Haim, 1987). While conducting research in Eastern Europe, for
example, Bar Haim (1987) found that youths used the multitude of foreign (western)
commercial items, which formed a central category, to assemble a personal style and to
display individual taste - something locals felt domestic goods could not do.
Consumer Xenocentrism and Oppositional Buying
A smaller stream of research documents how consumers use the purchase of foreign
products as a way to express civic disloyalty or disagreement through oppositional
buying. Belk et al. (1982), for example, report that the American purchase of Swissmade Volvo’s during the 1970s was a symbol of opposition against US Vietnam War
policy and support for Sweden’s policy criticizing the same. Oppositional buying was
also documented in Eastern Europe during the communist regime. Howes (1998), for
example, argues the region’s conspicuous consumption of western goods was a way
members demonstrated opposition to the communist system and support for political
ideology and economic values different to their own i.e. foreign products were used as a
way to convey a clear statement of what members stood against (Bar-Haim, 1987;
Drazin, 1991). More recently, Muslim girls in the Middle East have been using the
headscarf (or lack of one) to mark their separate identity and show rejection of rule
imposed by an oppressive majority (The Economist, 2003). Conner (2002) argues
similarly that the world-wide popularity of Hip Hop is due to its association with the
African Diaspora and, to listeners, it represents resistance to the mainstream national
culture. In the US and other countries, Rastafarian hairstyles, music, and dress by nonJamaicans seems to serve the same purpose.
Consumer Xenocentrism and Ethnic Identity
Other researchers have shown how consumers use foreign products to materially
demonstrate their identification with a minority ethnicity in opposition to the national
majority (Halter, 2000). The wearing of headscarves by the Muslim minorities in France,
for example, have been used by national minorities there to demonstrate a preference
for religious values in opposition to the predominantly Christian national in-group
(Auslander, 2000).
Consequences of Consumer Xenocentrism
Not all products have social meaning and, in western countries, where consumer
xenocentrism is less common and where consumers purchase thousands of products
annually, the effects of consumer xenocentrism would be minimal and are often
unnoticed. Indeed, it is natural for people and groups to admire and emulate successful
out-groups. Much foreign product bias can be attributed to the quest to having higher
quality (or better performing) goods and services. Foreign product favoritism can even
be healthy as it highlights weaknesses in the domestic system and spurs domestic
companies to produce better and more market oriented products. In less economically
advanced countries, where there seems to be proportionally more consumer
xenocentrics, several important negative effects have been noted. Research findings
suggest, for example, that the purchase of more expensive foreign products is often
done at the expense of food, health, and education and, consequently, contributes to a
decline in living standards (Human Development Report, 1998; Ger and Belk, 1996;
James, 1993; Hamelink, 1983; Mitalart, 1983). There has been some research that
suggests that due to vulnerabilities arising from illiteracy and poverty, the lack of
experience with consumer goods, and absence of controls on marketing, those in
developing world are more vulnerable to marketing practices (which bias consumer
towards foreign goods) used by those in developed countries (Aguaya et al., 2003;
Taylor, 1998; James, 1993; Sinclair, 1987; Bierstecker, 1978).
Consumers who derogate and distance themselves from domestic purchases in order to
present a different and more prestigious self, by their very actions may help reduce
confidence and pride in local manufacturing which can lead to the loss of local industries
(e.g. Bayly, 1986; Okechuku and Onyemah, 1999; Norberg-Hodge, 1999), a decline in
purchase choices, especially among traditional products or even a dependency of
foreign ones (Ger, 1999; Heyman, 1994; Dholakia et al., 1988; Belk, 1988; Sinclair,
1987). United Nations studies (Toepfler, 2002), for example, partially blame the rising
dominance of Western values and traditions for a loss of local culture and knowledge
and, consequently, the treasure trove of indigenous products, including many drugs,
crops, and industrial products with superior properties, that have vanished from the
market.
Ironically, significant consumer xenocentrism is likely to generate a “protection of the
herd” mentality. Hannerz (1987) and James (1993) have described how foreign
competition and discrimination can lead to a greater sense of unity and solidarity and
result in a greater material identification with their own national group - in a sort of
renaissance of the traditional. After an initial obsession and fascination with foreign
products in East Germany and Hungary, for example, consumers flocked back to
products reminiscent of their former selves in a phenomenon known as “ostolgie” (Blum,
2000). Nationalistic backlash via consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp, 1983; Shimp and
Sharma, 1987) or consumer animosity (Klein et al., 1998) are other well-established
reactions to consumer xenocentrism. Bayly (1986) summarizes a number of historical
examples whereby natives in Asia and Africa eventually rejected European products and
refused to produce European crops in collective protest against colonization and
destruction of the local culture. Gerth (2003), Hamelink (1983), Bullis (1997), and Batra
(1997) relate cases of resurgent economic nationalism and chauvinism that resulted in a
backlash return to local goods. According to Soyinka (1999), social history is replete
with examples of nations that deliberately close their doors to foreign ideas, tastes and
objects because they fear that there will be an erosion of confidence in or appreciation
of one’s own.
A less commonly discussed consequence of referencing higher status groups, rather
than one’s own, is that if the high promise of change is not met, feelings of relative
deprivation result (Runciman, 1966; Hyman, 1968). Applied to the consumer sphere,
mass dissatisfaction and feeling of being left behind relative to what consumers see on
television can create civil or political turmoil, even revolution (Sinclair, 1987). According
to Ger and Belk (1996), the revolutions in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union
were as much about consumer longing and frustration as it was about political longing
and frustration. Harmon’s (1998) research in China shows that the exposure to a new
way of life and higher standard of living (especially as portrayed in Western media) has
resulted in increased expectations that are not being met; the result has been protest
marches, demonstrations, and assemblies (overwhelmingly in the rural areas) and even
deaths related to the protests.
A Research Agenda
Despite national identity and consumption being a popular subject in anthropology,
sociology, political psychology, and other areas of the social sciences, the literature
remains surprisingly disjointed. Though there is a considerable amount of research that
has consistently documented consumer xenocentric behaviors, most findings have been
tangential to other studies. Placing foreign product bias within the framework of
consumer xenocentrism offers researchers an alternative way of examining and
understanding foreign product bias; it also raises many questions and opens many
interesting avenues for future research.
The Universality and Dimensionality of Consumer Xenocentrism
To date, consumer xenocentrism data have been almost exclusively descriptive which
has tended to limit the objectivity of the results. Likewise, many are country-specific so
comparisons are difficult. Further research, therefore, should be directed at developing
quantitative measures that can identify the dimensionality and universality of the
construct and test the theoretical premises suggested by others. Of particular theoretical
interest would be the relationship between consumer xenocentrism and other more
contemporary forms of consumption such as materialism (Belk, 1985; Richins and
Dawson, 1992; Ger and Belk, 1996) and modernity (Portes, 1973a; 1973b; Inkeles and
Smith, 1974) which appears to share some common dimensions such as openness,
individualism, technological advancement, scientific etc. Additionally, it would be
interesting to empirically test differences in consumer xenocentrism and other types of
out-group orientations such as cosmopolitanism (Yoon et al., 1996; Cannon and Yaprak,
2002), internationalism (Lutzker, 1960; Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989; Balabanis et
al., 2001) and world-mindedness (Sampson and Smith, 1957; Douglas et al., 2000).
Demographics and Consumer Xenocentrism
Another area that could be explored fruitfully is whether some demographic variables
serve as moderators of consumer xenocentrism and behavior. A number of authors
have described that younger members are more consumer xenocentric (Batra et al.,
2000; Petras, 1993). In this case, it may be that younger members are, as Kent and
Burnight (1951) describe, simply demonstrating their youthful independence. It would
be interesting to see whether younger members continue to have a life-long bias
towards foreign products or whether they begin to value more their own group and its
products as they age. Nam (1998) also offers an interesting observation that foreign
product bias may be especially true for women who have been subjugated or live in
male-oriented societies. An examination of gender differences, consequently, might
yield some useful findings. Likewise, past research has suggested that children of
immigrants and ethnic minorities that are economically, socially or politically
disadvantaged are likely to be more xenocentric. An investigation of ethnicity and
consumer xenocentrism, consequently, would also be of interest to marketing
practitioners.
Researchers have also noted economic differences. There is much descriptive research,
for example, demonstrating that foreign products are purchased more often by wealthier
domestic consumers, especially the local elite who want to demonstrate their status
relative to world standards (e.g. James, 1993; Belk, 2000). Indeed, James (1993)
argues that in order to maintain the image, consumers must also purchase a set of
complementary goods, consequently, to reap that status rewards of foreign products
one must have greater financial resources. Similarly since attempts at upward social
mobility will be initiated by those disadvantaged group members who are closest to the
advantaged group in terms of necessary entrance (e.g. Taylor et al., 1987), it seems
likely that a positive relationship exists between income and consumer xenocentrism.
Other studies show, however, that the masses, though not wealthy enough to purchase
expensive foreign products will, nevertheless purchase less expensive foreign goods
and counterfeits as a way to show their status. James (1993) even argues that lower
income consumers are likely to get proportionally more benefit from a rise in status that
results from foreign product acquisition and, consequently, less affluent consumers
might be expected to be more consumer xenocentric.
Several researchers have commented on urban and rural differences with regard to
foreign product bias. Bullis (1997), for example, noted that urbanites in India were the
first to embrace prestige-enhancing foreign products. Research conducted by Shultz et
al., (1994) suggests this may be because older, more rural populations may have more
traditional values and modes of behavior which are highly resistant to change (and,
therefore, be less likely to prefer foreign products). Urban/rural differences, however,
may simply be due to the fact that those in urban areas have more knowledge,
exposure, and access (both economic and physical) to foreign products; it could also be
that researchers have focused their studies on urban, as opposed to rural, areas.
Research examining urban/rural differences is, consequently, needed to more fully
understand the consumer xenocentrism phenomenon.
Collectivism, Individualism and Consumer Xenocentrism
Several researchers have noted the relationship between collectivism and foreign
product bias. As collectivistic cultures have strong social hierarchies, members place
more importance on social recognition and preserving public image (Triandis et al.,
1990); consequently, the symbolic value of consumption becomes more important in
collectivistic cultures (Wong and Ahuvia, 1998). Others have suggested that the
purchase of foreign goods reflects the progression from a collective society to a more
individualized social life where individuals compete with one another for status through
the display of foreign (Western) goods (Philbert and Jourdan, 1998). Because there is a
high correlation between economic development and collectivism (Hofstede, 1980),
foreign product bias may be marked in emerging markets.
The Product-life Cycle and Consumer Xenocentrism
Consumer xenocentrism might also be studied fruitfully within the broader context of
economic globalization and globalized societies. Certainly, globalization has resulted in
greater flows of products and people between countries. When emerging markets first
open to foreign goods, foreign products and brands may already be well-known and
highly sought-after (Arnold and Quelch, 1998; Amine et al., 2005). Some of the
competitive advantage may be lost, however, as consumers become more familiar with
the products (Batra, 1997) or when the product loses its ‘foreignness’ (Zhou and Hui,
2002; Batra et al., 2000). Likewise, as the overall status of a country improves,
consumers may become less consumer xenocentric. In emerging markets, the product
lifecycle (PLC) might resemble a j-curve or some other variant of the traditional bellshape. If this is the case, marketing strategies will have to be changed accordingly.
Foreign Propaganda, Media and Consumer Xenocentrism
Kent and Burnight (1951) originally suggested that foreign propaganda, which presents
a distorted view of a foreign society, is one external pressure that generates xenocentric
feelings. Guetzhow (1955) also noted that infrequent contact with an out-group presents
little opportunity for testing the reality of stereotypes and this can reinforce false
stereotypes. Indeed, Zhang (1995) reviews that it is commonly thought that those in
developing countries have less abundant information and purchasing experience with
foreign products and this might bias them towards foreign products. This is supported
by Schultz et al.’s (1994) review of marketing studies in less developed countries which
did find that powerful images of Western or American consumption and the good life
from exposure to seemingly wealthy tourists, travel to neighboring countries, advertising,
and mass media contribute to the development of a false stereotype about Western
advancement on a number of dimensions. Theories on western media imperialism and
the unilateral power of western companies and imbalanced resources have also been
offered as evidence that Western ideals are promoted disproportionately (e.g. Shiller,
1976; Ewen, 1998). Though there is considerable debate as to the validity of such
theories, a meta-analysis conducted by Ware and Dupagne (1995) did find some
(limited) support for these theories.
Conclusion
This paper introduces the socio-psychological concept of xenocentrism to the consumer
sphere and presents it as an alternative explanation for foreign product bias.
A
consumer xenocentric is defined as a person who prefers products from a country (or
region) other than their own and who rates and scales products in reference to the
foreign country and not their own.
The authors hypothesize that consumer
xenocentrism may underlie at least some foreign product bias. The evidence of
consumer xenocentrism in different national settings suggests that the phenomenon is
universal, however, consumer xenocentrics appear to be found in proportionally larger
numbers in emerging market countries. The concept of consumer xenocentrism may
provide insight into the development of international marketing strategy, outlining
alternatives in countries or regions where marketers have tended to stress improving
quality, reducing prices, and/or changing promotion strategy in response to bias against
foreign products.
Past research shows that people and groups will admire and emulate successful outgroups. Much of buying behavior, as it relates to foreign products, can simply be
attributed to the quest to having better goods and services or improving one’s life.
Foreign product favoritism can be healthy as it highlights weaknesses in the domestic
system and spurs domestic companies to produce better and more market oriented
products. It may also give people access to technological and symbolic resources for
constructing with their own identities. A deluge of foreign products might also give rise
to an enhanced appreciation of one's own traditional products and services. While there
can be positive outcomes from consumers referencing products from other countries,
the negative consequences of significant consumer xenocentrism can be severe and
can disadvantage local firms even when their products are of equal or even superior
quality. Significant consumer xenocentrism may also spark a backlash in consumer and
economic nationalism and consumers’ feelings of relative deprivation may result in
political and social unrest.
Understanding consumer xenocentrism and the context and conditions that give rise to
such ideological tendencies is important for academics, practitioners, and policy-makers.
The lack of focus on xenocentrism in general has left us with little understanding of how
consumer xenocentrism can be reduced or even under which conditions foreign
products or firms move from being a positive frame of reference, stimulating domestic
companies to be more competitive, to being perceived as a threat not simply to domestic
industry but to the basic norms and values of the country. The paper has outlined a
research agenda, identified the theoretical framework for consumer xenocentrism, and
addressed some of the discrepancies and conflicts within the national identity and
consumption literature.
References
Aguayo, V.M., Ross, J.S., Souleyman, K. and Ouedrago, A. (1997 ) ‘Monitoring
compliance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes in west
Africa: Multi-site Cross Sectional Survey in Togo and Burkina Faso’, The British
Journal of Medicine, 326 (January 18): 127.
Aleksic, T. (2002) ‘Benevolent Racism: Can the Other Represent Itself?’, Linguistics and
Literature, 2 (9): 349-357.
Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.-B., and Batra, R. (1999) ‘Brand Positioning Through
Advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer
Culture’, Journal of Marketing, 63 (January): 75-87.
Amer, M. and Schnaiber, A. (1972) ‘Measuring Individual Modernity: A Near Myth’,
American Sociological Review, 37 (June): 301-316.
Amine, L.S., Chao, M.C.H. and Arnold, M. (2005) ‘Executive Insights: Exploring the
Practical Effects of Country of Origin, Animosity, and Price-Quality Issues: Two Case
Studies of Taiwan and Acer in China’, Journal of International Marketing, 13 (2): 114150.
Arnold, D.J. and Quelch, J.A. (1998) ‘New Strategies in Emerging Market’, Sloan
Management Review, 40 (1): 7-20.
Auslander, L. (2000) ‘Bavarian Crucifixes and French Headscarves: Religious Signs and
the Post-modern European State’, Cultural Dynamics, 121 (3): 283-300.
Balabanis, G., Diamantoupolis, A., Mueller, R.D. and Melewar, T.C. (2001) ‘The Impact
of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric
Tendencies’, Journal of International Business Studies, 32 (1): 157-175.
Banajai, M.R. (2002) ‘The Social Psychology of Stereotypes’, in N.J. Semsler and P.B.
Baltes (eds), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Pergamon: New York:15100-15104.
Bar-Heim, G. (1987) ‘The Meaning of Western Commercial Artifacts for Eastern
European Youth’, Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16(2): 205-226.
Barber, B. (1996) Jihad vs McWorld, Ballantine Books: New York.
Batra, R. (1997) ‘Executive Insights: Marketing Issues and Challenges in Transition
Economies’, Journal of International Marketing, 3(4): 95-114.
Batra, R., Ramaswamy, V., Alden, D., Steenkamp, J.-B., and Ramachander, S.
(2000) ‘Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in
Developing Countries’, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2): 83-95.
Bayly, C.A. (1986) ‘The Origins Of Swadeshi (Home Industry): Cloth And Indian Society
1700-1930’ in A. Appadurai, (ed) The Social Life of Things, Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK: 285-317.
Beckford, G.L. (1972) Persistent Poverty, Oxford University Press; Oxford UK.
Belk, R.W. (1985) ‘Materialism: Trait Aspects of Living in the Material World’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 12: 265-279
Belk, R.W. (2000) ‘Consumption Patterns of the New Elite in Zimbabwe’, Working Paper
288, University of Utah, (February): 1-16.
Belk, R.W. (1988) ‘Third World Consumer Culture in Research in Marketing’, in E.
Kumcu and A.F. Firat (eds) Marketing Development: Toward a Broader Dimension,
JAI Press: Greenwich, CT: 103-127.
Belk, R.W., Bahn, K.D., and Mayer, R.N. (1982) ‘Developmental Recognition of
Consumption Symbolism’, Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (June): 4-17.
Biersteker T.J. (1978) ‘Distortion or Development? Contending Perspectives on the
Multinational Corporation’, MIT Press: Cambridge Mass.
Bilkey, W.J. and Nes, E. (1982) ‘Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations’,
Journal of International Business Studies, (Spring/Summer): 89-99.
Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982) ‘Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations’, Journal
of International Business Studies, (Spring/Summer):89-99,
Blum, J.D. (2000) ‘Remaking the East German Past’, Journal of Popular Culture, 34 (4)
Winter:229-254.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (1977) ‘Media imperialism: Towards an international framework for the
analysis of media systems in J. Curran, M. Gurevitch and J. Woollacott (eds.), Mass
Communication and Society, The Open University/Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd:
London: 116-135.
Breen, T.H. (1988) ‘Baubles of Britain: The American and Consumer Revolutions of the
Eighteenth Century’, Past and Present: 73-104.
Brewer, M. and Kramer, R. (1985) ‘The Psychology of Inter-group Attitudes and
Behavior’ in M. Rosenzweig and L. Porter (eds) Annual Revue of Psychology, Palo
Alto, 36: 219-43.
Bullis, D. (1997) ‘Selling to India’s Consumer Market’, Quorum Books: Westport
Connecticut.
Cannon, H.M. and Yaprak, A. (2002) ‘Will the Real World Citizen Please Stand Up’,
Journal of International Marketing, 10(4): 30-52.
Classen, C. (1998) ‘Sugar Cane, Coca-cola and Hypermarkets: Consumption and
Surrealism in the Argentine Northwest’, in D. Howes, (ed) Cross Cultural
Consumption: Global Markets Local Realities, Routledge: London: 39-54.
Classen, C. and Howes, D. (1998) ‘Epilogue: The Dynamics and Ethics of CrossCultural Consumption’, in D. Howes (ed), Cross-cultural Consumption: Global
Markets, Local Realities Routledge: New York: 178-194.
Comaroff, J. (1998) ‘The Empire’s Old Clothes: Fashioning the Colonial Subject’, in D.
Howes (ed), Cross Cultural Consumption: Global Markets Local Realities, Routledge:
London: 19-38.
Connor, B. (2002), ‘Good Buddah and Tzu: Middleclass Wiggers from the Underside’,
Youth Studies Australia, 22 (2): 48-54.
DeLamter, J., Katz, D. and Kelman, H. (1969) ‘On the Nature of National Involvement: a
Preliminary Study’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 13 (3) September: 320-357.
Dholakia, R., Sharif, M. and Bhandari, L. (1988) ‘Consumption in the Third Word:
Challenges for Marketing and Development’, in E Kumcu and A.F. Firat (eds)
Research in Marketing and Development: Toward a Broader Dimensions Research in
Marketing, JAI Press: Greenwich, CT:129-147.
Douglas, S.P., Beckmann, S.C., Botschen, G., Botschen, M., Friese, S., and Nijssen, E.
(2000) ‘The Worldminded Consumer: An Emic Exploration’, Association for Consumer
Research Proceedings, Salt Lake City.
Drazin, A.M. (1991) ‘Changing Appearances in Romania’, in C. Schulz, R.W. Belk and
G. Ger (eds), Consumption in Marketing Economies, JAI Press: Greenwich CT: 5788.
Druckman, D. (1994) ‘Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social
Psychological Perspective’, Marshon’s International Studies Review, 38: 43-68.
The Economist (2003) ‘Veil of Woes; Religion in France’, 369 (8354) December 13: 14.
Ewen, S. (1988), All Consuming Images, McGraw Hill: New York.
Fishbein, M. (1963) ‘The Perception of Non-Members: A Test of Merton’s Reference
Group Theory’, Sociometry, 26 (3) September: 271-289.
Frank, D. (1999) ‘Buy American: The Untold Story of Economic Nationalism’, Beacon
Press.
Friedman, J. (1990), ‘Being in the World: Globalization and Localization’, in M.
Featherstone (ed), Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity: A
Theory, Culture and Society Special Issue, Sage: London: 311-328.
Gaedeke, R. (1973) ‘Consumer Attitudes Towards Products Made in Developing
Countries’, Journal of Retailing, 49 (2) Summer: 13-24.
Ger, G. (1999) ‘Localizing in the global Village: Local Firms Competing in Global
Markets’, California Management Review, 41 (4): 64-83.
Ger, G. and Belk, R.W. (1996) ‘I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke: Consumptionscapes of
the Less Affluent World’, Journal of Consumer Policy, 19: 271-304.
Ger, G. and Belk, R.W. (1996), ‘Cross-cultural Differences in Materialism’, Journal of
Economic Psychology, 17: 55-77.
Gerth, K. (2003) China Made: Consumer Culture and the Creation of the Nation,
Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Mass.
Grant, P.R. and Brown, R. (1995) ‘From Ethnocentrism to Collective Protest: Responses
to Relative Deprivation and Threats to Social Identity’, Social Psychology Quarterly,
58 (3): 195-211.
Guetzkow, H. (1955) ‘Multiple Loyalties: Theoretical Approach to a Problem in
International Organization’, Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ.
Guetzkow, H. (1957) ‘Isolation and Collaboration: A Partial Theory of Inter-national
Relations’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (1): 48-68.
Halter, M. (2000) ‘Shopping For Identity: The Marketing of Ethnicity’, Schocken Books:
New York.
Hamelink, C.J. (1983) ‘Cultural Autonomy in Global Communications: Planning National
Information Policy’, Longman: New York.
Hamilton, G.G. (1977) ‘Chinese Consumption of Foreign Commodities’, American
Sociological Review, 42 (6) December: 877-891.
Han, C.M. (1988) ‘The Role of Consumer Patriotism in the Choice of Domestic versus
Foreign Products’, Journal of Advertising Research, (June/July): 25-32.
Hannerz, U. (1990) ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’ in Featherstone, Mike
(ed) Global Culture, Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity: A Theory, Culture and
Society Special Issue, Sage: London: 237-252.
Hannerz, U. (1987) ‘Scenarios for Peripheral Cultures’, in A. King (ed), Culture,
Globalization and the World System: Contemporary Conditions for the Representation
of Identity, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis.
Harmon, J. (1998) ‘Relative Deprivation and Worker Unrest in Mainland China’, Asian
Studies.
Heyman, J.McC. (1994) ‘Changes in House Construction Materials in Border Mexico:
Four Research Propositions about Commoditization’, Human Organization, 53(2):
132-142.
Hirschman, E.C. (1981) ‘American Jewish Ethnicity: Its Relationships for Some Selected
Aspects of Consumer Behavior’, Journal of Marketing, 45 (3): 102-110.
Hofstede, G.H. (1980) Culture’s Consequences, International Differences in Workrelated Values, Sage: Beverly Hills.
Holt, D., Quelch, J.A. and Taylor, E.L. (2004) ‘How Consumers Value Global Brands’,
September 20, Harvard Business Review: 68-75.
Howes, D. (1996) ‘Cross-cultural Consumption: Global Markets Local Realities,
Routledge: New York.
Human Development Report (1998): Overview: Changing Today’s Consumption
Patterns—Tomorrow’s Human Development, United Nations Development
Programme, (http:www.undp.org/hdro/e98over.htm accessed 13 January 2003).
Hyman, H.H. and Singer, E. (1968) Readings in Reference group Theory and Research,
New York Free Press: New York.
Hyman, H. (1968) Readings in Reference Group Theory and Research, Ontario: CollierMacMillian.
Inkeles, A. and Smith, D.H. (1974), Becoming Modern, Harvard University Press:
Cambridge.
James, J. (1993) Consumption and Development, St Martin’s Press: New York.
Johansson, J.K. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (1987) ‘Multinational Production Effect of Brand
Value’, Journal of International Business Studies: 101-126.
Johansson, J.K. (1988) ‘Determinants and Effects of the Use of Made in Labels’,
International Marketing Review, 6 (1): 47-58.
Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P., and Nonaka, I. (1985) ‘Assessing the Impact of
Country-of-Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective’,
Journal of Marketing Research, XXII (Nov): 388-396.
Kelley, H.H. (1968) ‘Attitudes and Judgments as Influenced by Reference Groups, Two
Functions of Reference Groups’ in G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Hartley
(eds) Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston: New York: 410-414.
Kent, D.P. and Burnight, R.G. (1951) ‘Group Centrism in Complex Societies’, American
Journal of Sociology, 57 (3) (Nov): 256-259.
Khanna, S.R. (1986) ‘Asian Companies and the Country Stereotype Paradox: An
Empirical Study’, Columbia Journal of World Business: 29-38.
Kier, G.K. (1992) ‘The Roots of Western Influence in Africa: An Analysis of the
Conditioning Process’, The Social Science Journal, 29(1): 7-19.
Klein, J. (2002) ‘US Versus Them, or Us Versus Everyone? Delineating Consumer
Aversion to Foreign Goods’, Journal of International Business Studies, 33 (2):345363.
Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R. and Morris, M.D. (1998) ‘The Animosity Model of Foreign
Product Purchase: An Empirical Test’, Journal of Marketing, 62(1): 89-102.
Kosterman, R. and Feshback, S. (1989) ‘Towards a Measure of Patriotic and
Nationalistic Attitudes’, Political Psychology, 10(2):257-274.
Krishnakumar, P. (1974) ‘An Exploratory Study of the Influence of Country of Origin on
the Product Images of Persons from Selected Countries’, unpublished PhD
Dissertation, The University of Florida quoted in Bilkey, W. and Nes, E. (1982)
“Country of Origin Effects on Product Evaluations”, Journal of International Business
Studies Spring Summer: 89-99
Lall, S. and Streeten, P. (1977) ‘Foreign Investment, Transnationals and Developing
Countries’, Westview Press: Boulder, Colorado.
Li, Z.G., Shenzhao F. and Murray, L.W. (1997) ‘Country and Product Images: The
Perceptions of Consumers in the People’s Republic of China’, Journal of International
Consumer Marketing 10 (1/2): 115-138.
LaBarre, P. (1994) ‘Quality’s Silent Partner’, Industry Week, 18 (April): 47-48
Lester, J.W. (1999) ‘A Review and A Conceptual Framework of Prestige-seeking
Consumer Behavior’, Academy of Marketing Science Review.
Lowenthal, D. (1972) West Indian Societies, Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.
Luhtanen, R. and Crocker, J. (1992) ‘A Collective Self-esteem Scale: Self-evaluation of
one’s social identity’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18: 302-318.
Lutzker, D.R. (1960) ‘Internationalism as a Predictor of Cooperative Behavior’, Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 4 (4): 426-430.
Magdoff, H. (1978) Imperialism, Monthly Review Press: New York.
Maheswaren, D. (1994) ‘Country of Origin As a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer
Expertise and Attribute Strength on Product Evaluations’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 21: 354-365
McClelland, D.C. (1974) ‘Reviews: Becoming Modern’, Economic Development and
Culture Change, 25,1: 159-166.
Petras, J. (1993)
‘Cultural Imperialism In The Late 20th Century’, Journal Of
Contemporary Asia, 23(2): 139-149.
Okechuku, C. and Onyemah, V. (1999) ‘Nigerian Consumer Attitudes Toward Foreign
And Domestic Products’, Journal Of International Business Studies, 30 (3): 611-670.
Merton, R.K. and Rossi, A.K. (1950) ‘Contributions to the Theory of Reference Group
Behavior’ in R.K. Merton and P.F. Lazarsfeld (eds), Continuities in Social Research
Free Press: New York.
Merton, R.K. (1957) ‘Social Theory and Social Structure’, The Free Press: Glencoe
Illinois.
Montero, M. (1986) ‘Political Psychology in Latin America’ in M. Hermann (ed), Political
Psychology, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.
Nam, K.-A. (1998) ‘Confucian-Base Cultural Values And Influence On Portrayal Of
Women In Koran Television Commercials’, Asian Studies on the Pacific Coast
Conference Proceedings (June).
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1999) ‘Consumer Monoculture: The Destruction of Tradition”,
Global Dialogues’, Summer: 71-77.
Padmore, C. (2004) ‘Significant Flesh: Cosmetic Surgery, Physiognomy, and the
Erasure of Visual Difference(s)’, Lateral: A Journal of Textual and Cultural Studies
(www document) http://www.latrobe.edu.au/english/lateral/ (accessed 15 May 2006).
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Country of Origin Effects’,
Journal of International Business Studies, 4:883-900.
Portes, A. (1973a) ‘Modernity and Development: A Critique’, Studies in Comparative
International Development (8) 3: 23-43.
Portes, A. (1973b) ‘The Factorial Structure of Modernity: Empirical Replications and a
Critique’, American Journal of Sociology, 79 (1) July: 15-44.
Philbert, J-M., and Jourdan, C. (1998) ‘Perishable Goods: Modes of Consumption in the
Pacific Islands’, in D. Howes (ed), Cross Cultural Consumption: Global Markets Local
Realities, Routledge: London: 55-76.
Prah, K.K. (1999) ‘African Rennaisssance or Warlordism’, The New Struggle, Mufube
Fafelberg:Cape Town: 37-61.
Richins, M. and Dawson, S. (1992) ‘A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and
Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 19 (3) Dec: 303-316.
Rokeach, M. and Restle, F. (1960) ‘A Fundamental Distinction Between Open and
Closed Systems’ in Rokeach, M (ed), The Open and Closed Mind, Basic Books Inc:
New York.
Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-image, Princeton University
Press: Princeton, NJ.
Roszak, T. (1970) The Making of a Counter Culture, The University of California Press:
Berkley, CA.
Sklair L. (1991) Sociology of the Global System, Harvester Wheatsheaf: New York.
Roth, M.S. and Romeo, J.B. (1992) ‘Matching Product Category and Country Image
Perceptions: A Framework for Managing Country-of-Origin Effects’, Journal of
international Business Studies, 23 (3): 477-497.
Runciman, W. G. (1966) ‘Problems of Research on Relative Deprivation’, The European
Journal of Sociology, 2: 315-323.
Salazar, J. (1983) ‘Psychological Basis for Nationalism Mexico’, Hermann, Margaret G.
(ed), Political Psychology in Latin America, Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.
Sampson, D.L. and Smith, H.P. (1957) ‘A Scale to Measure World-minded Attitudes’,
The Journal of Social Psychology, 45: 99-106.
Samiee, S. (1994) ‘Customer Evaluation of Products in a Global Market’, Journal of
International Business Studies, 3: 579-604.
Sherry, J.F. Jr. and Camargo, E. (1987) ‘May Your Life Be Marvelous: English
Language Labelling and the Semiotics of Japanese Promotion’, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14: 174-188.
Shiller, H. (1969) Communication and Cultural Domination, International Arts and
Sciences Press Inc.: White Plains NY.
Swartz, M.J. (1961) ‘Negative Ethnocentrism’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution,
(March): 75-81.
Shimp, T. (1983) ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: The Concept and a Preliminary Empirical
Test’, in the Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of The Association for
Consumer Research: Chicago IL, October 20-23.
Shimp, T.. and Sharma, S. (1987) ‘Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and
Validation of the CETSCALE’, Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August): 280-289.
Shultz, C.J., Belk, R.W. and Ger, G. (1994) Research in Consumer Behavior:
Consumption in Marketing Economies, JAI Press Inc: Greenwich.
Shiller, H. (1976) Communication and Cultural Domination, International Arts and
Sciences Press: New York.
Sinclair, J. (1987) ‘Images Incorporated: Advertising as Industry and Ideology’, Croom
Helm: London.
Simmermaker, R. (2002) How Americans Can Buy American: The Power of Consumer
Patriotism, Rivercross Publications:
Singer, J.E., and Radloff, L.S. (1963) ‘Renegades, Heretics, and Changes in Sentiment’,
Sociometry, 26: 178-189.
Skalir, L. (1994) ‘The Culture-Ideology of Consumerism in Urban China: Some Findings
From A Survey in Shanghai’, Research in Consumer Behavior, 7: 259-292.
Swartz, M.J. (1961) ‘Negative Ethnocentrism’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 5
(1):75-81.
Soyinka, W. (1999) ‘The Dialogue of Cultures’, Weltachsen 2000 the Proceedings of the
International Congress, Center for European Integration Studies, Rheinische
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität: Bonn (November 11-12): 29-42.
Sumner, W.G. (1906) Folkways, Ginn: New York.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The Social Identity Theory Of Inter-Group Behavior in
Worchel, S. and Austin. L.W. (Eds.) Psychology Of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall:
Chicago.
Taylor, A. (1998) ‘Violations Of The International Code Of Marketing Of Breast Milk
Substitutes: Prevalence In Four Countries’, British Medical Journal, 316 (April): 1117
– 1122.
Taylor, D.M., Mogahadddam, F.M., Gamble, I. and Zellerer, E. (1987) ‘Disadvantaged
Group Responses To Perceived Inequality: From Passive Acceptance To Collective
Action’, Journal Of Social Psychology, 127 (3): 259-27.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986) ‘The Social Identity of Inter-group Behavior’ in S.
Worchel and W. Austin (eds), Psychology of Inter-group Relations, Nelson-Hall:
Chicago: 724.
Terhune, K. (1964) ‘Nationalism Among Foreign and American Students: An Exploratory
Study’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8 (3) September: 256-270.
Toepfer, K. (2002) keynote speaker citing global studies carried out by United Nations
Environmnent Programme (UNEP) at the 4th International Conference of the
International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests,
Nairobi, November 18.
Tomlinson, J. (1991) Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction, Johns Hopkins
University Press: Baltimore.
Triandis, H.S. McCusker, C. and Hui, C.H. (1990) ‘Multi-method Probes of Individualism
and Collectivism’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 118-128.
Truehart, C. (1998) ‘With Popularity Come Pitfalls: America’s Pop Culture Can Be
Stolen, Altered, and Even Turned Against the U.S.’, Washington Post: A19.
Tse, D.K. and Lee, W.-N. (1993) ‘Removing Negative Country Images: Effects of
Decomposition, Branding, and Product Experience’, Journal of International Business
Studies, 1(4): 25-48.
Van Eltern, M. (1996), ‘Conceptualizing the Impact of US Popular Culture Globally’,
Journal of Popular Culture, 30 (1): 37-49.
Veblen, T. (1899) ‘The Theory of the Leisure Class’, Macmillan: New York, London.
Walker, I. and Pettigrew, T.F. (1984) ‘Relative Deprivation Theory: An Overview and
Conceptual Critique’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 23: 301-310.
Ware, W. and Dupagne, M. (1995) ‘Effects of US Television Programs on Foreign
Audiences: A Meta-analysis’, Journalism Quarterly, 71 (4): 947-959.
Yoon, S.-J., Cannon, H.M. and Yaprak, A. (1996) ‘Evaluating the CYMYC
Cosmopolitan Scale on Korean Customers’, Advances in International Marketing, 7:
211-232.
Zhou, L. and Hui, M.K. (2005) ‘Symbolic Value of Foreign Products in the People’s
Republic of China’, Journal of International Marketing, 11( 2): 36-58.
Wong, N.Y. and Ahuvia, A.C. (1998) ‘Personal Taste and Family Face: Luxury
Consumption in Confucian and Western Societies’, Psychology and Marketing, 15
(5):423-441.