a global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products

18Journal of MarketingVol. 74 (November 2010), 18–40

© 2010, American Marketing AssociationISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic)

Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp & Martijn G. de Jong

A Global Investigation into theConstellation of Consumer AttitudesToward Global and Local Products

In this article, the authors introduce attitude toward global products (AGP) and attitude toward local products (ALP)as generalized attitudinal constructs and address the four issues these constructs raise: (1) How are AGP and ALPrelated to each other? (2) What is the motivational structure underlying AGP and ALP? (3) Is the proposed theoryculturally circumscribed, or does it generalize across countries? and (4) What are the managerially relevantimplications of these consumer attitudes? To answer these questions, the authors propose and empirically test anintegrated structure for AGP and ALP and their antecedents, organized around the powerful motivational conceptof values. They test their theory using a unique data set involving 13,000 respondents from 28 countries in theAmericas, Asia, and Europe, thus allowing for a global investigation of a global issue. The study findings providemanagers with strategic direction on how to market their products in a globalized world.

Keywords: global products, local products, global marketing, consumer culture, values

Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp is C. Knox Massey Distinguished Professorof Marketing and Marketing Area Chair, Kenan-Flagler Business School,University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (e-mail: [email protected]). MartijnG. de Jong is Associate Professor of Marketing, Rotterdam School ofManagement, Erasmus University (e-mail: [email protected]). The authorsthank AiMark for providing the data and the anonymous JM reviewers andValarie Zeithaml for their constructive comments on previous drafts of thisarticle. Dana Alden and Rajeev Batra provided excellent measurementsuggestions. Martijn G. de Jong thanks the Netherlands Organization forScientific Research for research support.

The globalization of the marketplace is one of thepivotal developments facing companies around theworld. Developments accelerating the trend toward

global market integration include worldwide investment andproduction strategies, standardization of manufacturingtechniques, emergence of global media and the Internet,growing urbanization, rapid increase in education and liter-acy levels, and expansion of world travel and migration(Ritzer 2007; Yip 2003).

Consistent with current trends in globalization, manyinternational companies have moved from the traditionalmultidomestic approach, in which local subsidiaries marketlocally developed products to the local population, to aglobal approach, in which firms market their products on aglobal basis with only limited adaptation to local markets(Kotabe and Helsen 2010). For example, Procter & Gambleand Unilever have greatly pruned their number of localproducts while putting their money behind products withglobal potential (Schuiling and Kapferer 2004).

An important question involves whether the movetoward global products is consistent with market demands.Many global researchers believe this is not the case. Theyposit a basic trade-off between adaptation (local responsive-

ness) and aggregation (economies of scale). Ghemawat(2007, p. 198, emphasis in original) calls this “the strategicchoice on which the literature on global strategy has tradi-tionally focused.” According to Ghemawat, firms can gaincompetitive advantage either by achieving local relevancethrough a focus on local products or by achievingeconomies of scale and scope through international stan-dardization of global products. In a similar vein, Kotabe andHelsen (2010) argue that global products are motivated by aproduct orientation, or the lowering of costs through massproduction. In contrast, local products are inspired by amarket-driven mind-set, or the increase of consumer satis-faction by offering local products that match local needs.This position also appears in most international textbooks.

Other authors question the existence of the basic trade-off between local relevance and global efficiency. Levitt(1983) argues that consumers around the world prefer the(alleged) superior quality and reliability that global prod-ucts offer. Yip (2003, p. 95) notes that “in many situationsstandardization can actually increase preference.” Consis-tent with this notion, Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003)find that consumers’ preferences for globally branded prod-ucts are positively related to the degree to which theybelieve that these products are sold around the world ratherthan being available only on a local basis. Consumers oftenequate consumption of global products with modernity,progress, consumerism, efficiency, and a promise of abun-dance (Holton 2000). To complicate the issue further, evi-dence also exists that consumers may combine a strongpreference for global products with an equally strong pref-erence for local products (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price2008). Finally, there is growing support that consumers canreject both local and global products altogether, viewingthem as conduits through which companies attempt to hook

them into the superficial consumption of commoditizedproducts (Arnett 2002).

Given the central role of product policy in firm strategy,this lack of guidance in the marketing literature is problem-atic. One solution, originally proposed in Keegan’s (1969)classic article, would be to simply acknowledge that con-sumer acceptance of global versus local products dependson the specific product-market–company mix. Although inthe extreme this may be true, it offers little guidance tointernational companies. Instead, we postulate a commonthread that underlies an individual consumer’s response toglobal and local products across the broad range of productcategories. We posit that consumers vary systematically andpredictably in their attitudes toward global products (AGP)and in their attitudes toward local products (ALP). Con-sumers differ systematically on AGP and ALP in that theseattitudes are not just specific to a particular product butrather are generalized attitudes across a wide variety ofproduct categories. Furthermore, we propose that con-sumers differ predictably on AGP and ALP in that theseattitudes are not merely stochastic entities but rather can beunderstood by people’s underlying motivational structure.

Our position on AGP and ALP raises several importantissues. First, how are AGP and ALP related to each other?Are they polar opposites? If not, how can they be combinedto explain such seemingly different responses by consumersto global and local products? Second, what is the motiva-tional structure purportedly underlying AGP and ALP?Third, is our theory culturally circumscribed, or does ourtheory generalize across countries? Most theories are basedon the U.S. context (Steenkamp 2005). Global generaliz-ability is especially important in our context because, bydefinition, global products are marketed in countries aroundthe world. Finally, what are the managerially relevant impli-cations of these consumer attitudes?

The contributions of this article are to introduce AGPand ALP as generalized attitudinal constructs and to addressthe four issues they raise. To achieve this, we propose andempirically test an integrated structure for AGP and ALPand their antecedents, organized around the powerful moti-vational concept of values (Rokeach 1973; Schwartz 1992).We test our theory using a unique data set involving 13,000respondents from 28 countries in the Americas, Asia, andEurope. The study findings provide managers with strategicdirection how to market their products in a globalizedworld.

Attitudes Toward Global and LocalProducts

Understanding AGP and ALP in the Context ofConsumer Culture

An attitude “is a psychological tendency that is expressedby evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favoror disfavor” (Eagly and Chaiken 1998, p. 269). In our study,the entities of interest are global and local products. Consis-tent with the consumer culture literature, in this article,“products” refer to everything that can be consumed,including tangible products, services, brands, lifestyles, and

Attitudes Toward Global and Local Products / 19

symbols (Holt 1998; Tomlinson 1999). Local products aretailored for local markets and are marketed and distributedonly in the consumer’s home country, and global productsare tailored for global markets and marketed and distributedin many countries around the world (Strizhakova, Coulter,and Price 2008). To understand why consumers have gener-alized attitudes toward global and local products, we turn tothe consumer culture literature (Arnould and Thompson2005; Slater 1997).

The central notion of consumer culture is that in a mod-ern world, core identities are defined and oriented in rela-tion to consumption (Holt 2002). Indeed, consumer culturehas been called “a culture of consumption” (Slater 1997, p.8, emphasis in original). People embracing consumer cul-ture attempt to add meaning to their lives, to make sense oftheir environments, and to orient their own experiences andlives through consumption of products as broadly conceived(Tomlinson 1999). It is widely recognized that the interpen-etration of local cultures and the cultural forces associatedwith the globalization of the marketplace heavily influencecontemporary consumer culture (Appadurai 1996; Ritzer2004, 2007). Indeed, Tomlinson (1999, p. 190) calls “local-ism” and “globalism” the “two axial principles of our age.”

Traditionally, the dominant consumer culture was theculture of one’s home country, called the local consumerculture (LCC). Even today, LCC remains a strong force inthe lives of most people around the world (Crane 2002).People who embrace LCC attempt to add meaning to theirlives through the consumption of locally conceived prod-ucts. Across a wide range of consumption categories, theyvalue the products that are indigenously conceived and con-trolled and products that are comparatively rich in distinc-tive local content. Moreover, globalization of world marketshas led to renewed appreciation for LCC among some con-sumers who oppose the “bland homogeneity” of the same(Western-conceived) products, services, symbols, and arti-facts everywhere (Steger 2003). Considering the key role ofconsumption of products in consumer culture, it stands toreason that consumers who embrace LCC have a more posi-tive ALP in general. Conversely, there are consumers whobelieve that products imbued with local cultural contenthave lost much of their relevance in an era of worldwidediffusion of practices, expansion of relations across conti-nents, organization of social and cultural life on a globalscale, and the growth of a shared global consciousness(Ritzer 2007, p. 4). These consumers will have a more nega-tive ALP.

In recent decades, globalization processes have givenrise to a new cultural force, the global consumer culture(GCC) (Ritzer 2007). Global consumer culture is closelylinked to people’s belief in global citizenship and the desireto participate in the “global village” (Strizhakova, Coulter,and Price 2008). People attempt to find meaning in theirlives as consumers through the consumption of productsthat are generally recognized as international and transcend-ing individual national cultures. They are attracted to the“shared consciousness” and the cultural meanings producedby globalization (Holton 2000). They appreciate theincreased homogenization of consumer culture around acommon set of traits and practices, associated with the

worldwide spread of the market economy and the globalstrategies of international companies (Alden, Steenkamp,and Batra 1999). Conversely, other consumers may rejectthe (alleged) “emptiness” of deterritorialized, global prod-ucts. They are turned off by the perceived homogenizedproduction of meanings and symbols that are often centrallyconceived, controlled, and comparatively devoid of distinc-tive substantive content (Ritzer 2007, p. 36). In summary,we expect people to have a more positive generalized AGPto the extent that they embrace GCC, in which global prod-ucts are firmly embedded.

Companies seem to realize the importance of GCC andLCC to consumers and use cultural positioning in their mar-keting strategies. Across seven developed and emergingcountries, Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) find that81% of advertisements used either an LCC positioningstrategy (59%) or a GCC positioning strategy (22%).

Combining AGP and ALP

Consumer culture theory provides a theoretical foundationfor our proposition that consumers hold attitudes towardglobal and local products that generalize across productdomains. How are AGP and ALP related to each other? Thepreceding discussion might suggest that they exist as attitu-dinal polarities in the sense that a positive attitude towardthe one goes together with a negative attitude toward theother (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006). Indeed, signifi-cant numbers of consumers fit into this unipolar pattern.Some consumers substitute globally diffused products forthose from their traditional LCCs. We refer to this attitudi-nal response as “homogenization” (Holton 2000). Thehomogenization thesis is built around the utilitarian conve-nience of global products and their association with dreams,success, and global citizenship evoked through global medi-ascapes and marketing strategies (Alden, Steenkamp, andBatra 1999). Homogenization is informed by the idea thatlarge numbers of people around the world are substitutingglobally diffused products for local products from their tra-ditional LCC, leading to a world that is growing increas-ingly similar.

Other consumers combine a negative AGP with a posi-tive ALP. This combination of attitudes can be labeled“localization” These consumers prefer local consumptionoptions because they prefer greater (perceived) authenticity,which derives from their central role as carriers of LCC(Thompson and Arsel 2004). They may also more easilyidentify with local than with global lifestyles, attitudes, andbehaviors (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006). Further-more, a localization response can be motivated by rejectionof globalization trends in general. Such a response is reac-tive in nature, creating boundaries against the outside,exemplified by (homogeneous) global products, which areviewed as hegemonic and alien (Holton 2000). There arealso consumers for whom a focus on local products is partof their self-preserving strategy to survive in a rapidlychanging world in which old certainties seem to crumbleand new cultural influences are feared or outright rejected(Ritzer 2007).

However, various globalization theorists have insistedthat the polarity thesis is simplistic, if not outright wrong, in

20 / Journal of Marketing, November 2010

that significant groups of consumers combine a positive(negative) AGP with a positive (negative) ALP. Ritzer(2004, p. 163) maintains that “rather than either one over-whelming the other, the global and the local interpenetrate,producing unique outcomes in each location.” The complexinteraction of the local and the global gives rise to “glocal”identities of many modern consumers (Strizhakova, Coulter,and Price 2008). Glocal consumers desire to creativelycombine both local and global products in their consump-tion repertoire. For example, Kinra (2006) finds that Indianconsumers exhibit high favoritism for local brands, thoughtheir preferences for global brands are equally positive andstrong.

Finally, some consumers combine a negative AGP witha negative ALP. They have become alienated from contem-porary consumer culture, with its “shallow” emphasis onconsumption of increasingly commoditized products,whether they are globally or locally conceived (Slater1997)—a state we refer to as “glalienation.” Rapid changesin consumer culture may result in “an acute sense of alien-ation” and impermanence as people experience a lack ofcultural certainty, or an absence of clear guidelines for howlife is to be lived and how to interpret their experience(Arnett 2002, p. 778). The apparent success of global prod-ucts around the world may undermine consumers’ beliefs inthe value of local product alternatives. If, at the same time,these consumers have trouble finding meaning in consump-tion of globally conceived products, alienation to consumerculture per se may occur (Arnett 2002).

In summary, we posit that ALP and AGP are conceptu-ally independent because negative or positive AGP cancoexist with negative or positive ALP. By combining the“axial principles of localism and globalism” (Tomlinson1999), we obtain the fully crossed attitude structure (seeFigure 1). Note that the crossed attitude structure in Figure1 does not imply that ALP and AGP are ecologically uncor-related. Rather, in contrast to the unipolar thesis, we positthat there is discriminant validity between the two constructs.

A Values-Based Framework ofAntecedents of AGP and ALP

Why do different consumers hold such varied generalizedattitudes toward global and local products? To address thisquestion, we propose a key role for the powerful motiva-

FIGURE 1Combinations of Consumer Attitudes Toward

Global and Local Products

LowAGP

ALP

High

Low

Hig

h

Glalienation Homogenization

Localization Glocalization

tional concept of values. Values are cognitive beliefs aboutdesirable goals and modes of conduct to promote thesegoals, which vary in importance, and serve as standards toguide attitudes and behavior (Schwartz 1992). As with atti-tudes, values can vary in level of abstractness, depending onthe entity being evaluated (Ajzen 2001). The differencebetween values and attitudes is not in terms of broadness orcontent of the construct but rather in their role in the psy-chological functioning of individuals. Values serve as goal-setting, guiding principles in people’s lives that vary inimportance and are central to self-identity, and attitudes areevaluative responses of some degree of favorability or unfa-vorability, which directly influence specific behaviors(Eagly and Chaiken 1998; Verplanken and Holland 2002).1

We take a values-based approach to understanding AGPand ALP for five reasons. First, and most important,because of their centrality to a person’s cognitive structure,it is widely recognized that values provide a powerful theo-retical basis for understanding attitudes (Ajzen 2001; Batra,Homer, and Kahle 2001; Burgess 1992; Homer and Kahle1988; Van Raaij and Verhallen 1994; Verplanken and Hol-land 2002). According to Rokeach (1973, p. 122), the rela-tively small number of values “is conceived to underliemany if not all social attitudes; moreover, a given value isconceived to determine several or many attitudes and agiven attitude to be determined by several or many values.”The values–attitudes hierarchy can be understood in termsof social adaptation theory (Homer and Kahle 1988).According to this theory, both values and attitudes are adap-tation abstractions that emerge from the processing of infor-mation to promote interchanges with the environmentfavorable to the preservation of optimal functioning (Kahle1983). As Homer and Kahle (1988, p. 638) argue, “becausevalues are the most abstract of the social cognitions, theyreflect the most basic characteristics of adaptation. These


abstractions serve as prototypes from which attitudes … aremanufactured.”

Second, the goal-setting function of values is particu-larly important in the context of AGP and ALP. After all, acentral tenet of consumer culture theory, which provides thetheoretical foundation for the existence of AGP and ALP, isthat people regard consumption of products as an importantand valuable goal in its own right (Bauman 1997; Ritzer2007, pp. 163–69). Third, values provide a unifying con-ceptual framework because they can be conceptualized atdifferent levels of abstraction (Hofstede 2001; Vinson,Scott, and Lamont 1977). This allows for a fine-grained butconceptually integrated understanding of antecedents ofAGP and ALP.

Fourth, the structure and content of (especially) national-cultural and general values has been thoroughly elucidatedand empirically tested in many countries around the world(e.g., Schwartz 1992; Vinken, Soeters, and Ester 2004).Globally validated theories are needed to understand globaland local attitudes in a global context (Steenkamp 2005).Fifth, values tend to be highly stable over time (Burgess1992; Schwartz 1992), which increases their usefulness astheoretical explanation and for managerial purposes.

In our conceptual framework, we distinguish amongthree levels of values: national cultural, general, and con-sumer domain specific (for an overview, see Table 1).Schwartz (1994) and Smith and Schwartz (1997) elaborateon the distinction between individual-level values and aggre-gate national-cultural values (see also Bearden Money, andNevins 2006; Hofstede 2001). According to Schwartz (1994,p. 92) individual-level values “reflect the psychologicaldynamics of conflict and compatibility that people experi-ence in the course of pursuing their different values in every-day life,” and national-cultural values “reflect the differentsolutions that societies evolve to the problems of regulatinghuman activities [and] the different ways that institutionalemphases and investments are patterned and justified in oneculture compared with another.”

Consumer researchers have proposed the further distinc-tion between general values and consumer domain-specificvalues (Homer and Kahle 1988; Van Raaij and Verhallen

1Hofstede (1998, p. 479) succinctly illustrates the differencebetween values and attitudes with an example: The question “Howhappy are you with your career opportunities?” is an attitude ques-tion, and “How important is it to you to have career opportuni-ties?” is a value question.

Level of Values Abstractness Definition Exemplary Values

National-culturalvalues

Highest Collectively held beliefs that aregenerally shared among people living

in the same country about abstractgoals and modes of conduct thattranscend specific situations and

behavioral domains.

Survival, self-expression (Inglehartand Baker 2000)

General values Individually held beliefs about abstractgoals and modes of conduct that

promote these goals that transcendspecific situations and behavioral

domains.

Power, universalism, security(Schwartz 1992)

Consumer domain-specific values

Lowest Individually held beliefs about concretegoals and modes of conduct that

promote these goals in the consumerdomain.

Materialism (Richins and Dawson1992), environmentalism (Grunert

and Juhl 1995)

TABLE 1Organization of Value Systems in Three Levels

1994; Vinson, Scott, and Lamont 1977). General values arecentrally held and enduring beliefs that guide actions andjudgments across the wide range of human domains. In con-trast, consumer domain-specific values reflect the notionthat people acquire more narrowly circumscribed valuesthrough experiences in specific domains of consumer activ-ity and that these consumer domain-specific values areneeded to fully understand and explain consumer attitudesand behavior (Vinson, Scott, and Lamont 1977, p. 45).

In Figure 2, we present our conceptual framework,including the specific values we consider for each valuelevel. In the next section, we develop our expectations aboutthe expected effect of these specific national-cultural, gen-eral, and consumer domain-specific values on AGP andALP. Given the dearth of previous evidence, we refrainfrom formulating formal hypotheses, but we summarize ourpredictions at the end of the next section. In our discussion,we focus on main effects. Some research in other contextssuggests that the effect of individual-level drivers variessystematically across national cultures (e.g., Steenkamp andGeyskens 2006; Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, and Wedel1999), though other studies find little evidence for suchcross-level interactions (e.g., Tellis, Prabhu, and Chandy2009). We test for the presence of cross-level interactions inour empirical study.

Effects of Values on AGP and ALPNational-Cultural Values

National-cultural values are the most abstract. Smith andSchwartz (1997) argue that the shared value emphases in a


country help shape the reward contingencies to whichpeople must adapt in the institutions in which they spendmost of their time (e.g., families, schools, businesses). As aresult, the members of each nation share many value-rele-vant social experiences, and they come to accept similarvalues. In the words of Inglehart and Baker (2000, p. 37),“Despite the globalization, the nation remains a key unit ofshared experience, and its educational and cultural institu-tions shape the values of almost everyone in that society.”Some countries may be, on average, higher in AGP or ALPthan other countries because of systematic differences intheir national-cultural value priorities.

The best-known national-cultural values systemsinclude the frameworks that Hofstede, Inglehart, Schwartz,and Triandis propose (for an overview and comparison, seeVinken, Soeters, and Ester 2004). For our purposes, Ingle-hart’s framework (see Inglehart and Baker 2000; Inglehartand Welzel 2005) is especially useful because it is groundedin materialism and modernization theory. These two con-cepts occupy a central position in both consumer culturetheory and globalization theory (Arnould and Thompson2005; Slater 1997). Inglehart identifies four clusters ofnational-cultural values, which are organized in two bipolardimensions: traditional versus secular–rational values andsurvival versus self-expression values. Countries low on thetraditional/secular–rational dimension (“traditional” societies)emphasize the importance of deference to authority, alongwith absolute standards and traditional family values. Thesesocieties have high levels of national pride and take protec-tionist and nationalist attitudes. Secular–rational societies’values have the opposite preferences on all these topics.Traditional societies’ nationalism and protectionism are

FIGURE 2Values-Based Framework of Antecedents of AGP and ALP

Notes: The dotted arrows refer to relationships that are estimated but not hypothesized. The direct effect of national-cultural values on AGP andALP refers to the role of national culture in explaining differences in aggregate country scores on AGP and ALP. The moderating effects refer todifferences in the magnitude of the within-country effect of specific antecedent across countries.

National-Cultural Values

• Traditional versus secular–rational• Survival versus self-expression

General Values

• Stimulation• Self-direction• Universalism• Benevolence• Tradition• Conformity• Security• Power• Achievement

Consumer-DomainSpecific Values

Product• Materialism• Innovativeness

Time• Nostalgia

Space• Consumer

ethnocentrism• EnvironmentalismSociodemographic Covariates

• Age• Sex• Education• Social class• Household size• Income evolution

Consumer Attitudes

AGP ALP

closely aligned with a focus on the local element in the con-sumer culture. Consequently, we expect that traditionalcountries are, on average, higher on ALP and thatsecular–rational countries are higher on AGP.

Countries low on the survival/self-expression dimension(“survival” societies) emphasize economic and physicalsecurity. There are strong economic, cognitive, and socialconstraints on individual choice and autonomy. The oppo-site applies to countries high on self-expression (“self-expression” societies). In these societies, economic securityis less of an issue, and individual autonomy is high. Thecontrast between materialist and postmaterialist values is akey component of the survival/self-expression dimension(Inglehart and Welzel 2005). This pits values such as secu-rity, affluence, and economic well-being against values suchas subjective well-being, quality of life, and protection ofthe environment. In self-expression societies, “the ‘qualityof experience’ replaces the quantity of commodities as theprime criterion for making a good living” (Inglehart andWelzel 2005, p. 25). Consequently, we expect that countrieshigh on self-expression have a more negative attitude towardconsumption of products as a way to bring meaning to life.Thus, we expect that countries high on self-expressionexhibit, on average, more negative attitudes toward ALPand AGP.


General Values

General values are powerful, individually held, motivationalregulators of specific consumer attitudes (Burgess 1992;Smith and Schwartz 1997; Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, andWedel 1999). The content and structure of human valueshas been most thoroughly elucidated in the work ofSchwartz (1992). He derives a universal typology of the dif-ferent contents of general values consisting of ten motiva-tionally distinct types of values. These ten value types canbe arranged in a circular order around the perimeter of a cir-cle: universalism, benevolence, conformity, tradition, secu-rity, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction; in turn, these are organized into four higher-ordervalue domains (for a graphical representation of Schwartz’scircumplex model, see Figure 3). The circular structure cap-tures the notion that the pursuit of different value types canbe compatible or in conflict, depending on how close thevalue types are. Conflict increases in proportion to the dis-tance between value types, with value types in opposingpositions from the center of the structure being in greatestcompetition (for definitions and examples, see Table 2).

According to Schwartz’s (1992) theory, associations ofany external variable, such as AGP or ALP, should decreasemonotonically when going around the circular structure ofvalue types in both directions from the most positively asso-

Hedonism

Achievement

Stimulation

PowerSecurity

Conformity

Benevolence

UniversalismSelf-direction

Tradition

Openn

ess to

Chang

e Self-Transcendence

Self-Enhancement

Con

serv

atio

n

FIGURE 3Schwartz’s Model of Relations Among General Values and Higher-Order Value Domains

Source: Adapted from Schwartz (1992).

ciated value type to the most negatively associated valuetype. This pattern of monotonically decreasing and, subse-quently, monotonically increasing associations creates asinusoid curve of associations from most positive to mostnegative, and back. The ALP construct fits into this sinusoidpattern of relationships. It seems to be most compatiblewith tradition and security, and possibly conformity, if werecognize that LCC from which ALPs derive is the “norm”in most countries around the world (Crane 2002). Con-versely, consumers who value change, new experiences, andindependence (stimulation and self-direction values) arelikely to be less attracted to local products because they arewell-established and may be perceived as old-fashioned.


As a key element of the recent trend toward globaliza-tion, global products imply change from the (local) con-sumption status quo. As such, global products are likely toappeal to consumers who value stimulation, while they arelikely to be rejected by people who value the status quo.However, relationships between AGP and general valuesmay be more complex than relationships between ALP andgeneral values. This is due to the complexity of GCC aspossessing two contrasting aspects (Tomlinson 1999). Onthe one hand, as Tomlinson (1999, p. 77) notes, there aremanifest attractions of creating “‘one-world’ in the interestsof peace … of the recognition of our ‘common humanity’”;on the other hand, Tomlinson highlights the association ofGCC with hegemony and power. If this Janus-faced concep-tualization of GCC is true, we would expect AGP to bepositively related to both universalism and power values.Although this is inconsistent with Schwartz’s (1992)straightforward sinusoid pattern, it highlights the complexi-ties and contradictions inherent in AGP.

Consumer Domain-Specific Values

We classify consumer domain-specific values (consumervalues) into three categories by recognizing that consumerculture deals with the consumption of products, across time,and across (social and physical) space (Tomlinson 1999).(Giddens [1990, p. 64] also talks about “how social life isordered across time and space.”) We use the products–time–space framework to identify and structure severalconsumer values that are theoretically relevant for under-standing AGP and ALP. More specifically, we considermaterialism, innovativeness, nostalgia, ethnocentrism, andenvironmentalism. The first two consumer values arerelated primarily to products, nostalgia to the time perspec-tive, and ethnocentrism and environmentalism to the (socialand physical) context.

Although we cannot claim that this set of consumer valuesis exhaustive, they are among the more important consumervalues to study as antecedents of AGP and ALP. The con-sumption of products is a defining feature of consumer cul-ture (Arnould and Thompson 2005), and this should resonatewith consumers who value materialism (Richins and Daw-son 1992). Furthermore, new products play a key role inmoving consumption to an ever higher level (Ritzer 2007).Thus, the extent to which consumers value new products(innovativeness) is closely related to the core of consumerculture. Consumer culture is highly dynamic and subject tochange (Slater 1997). People’s tendency to be forward look-ing versus living in the past (nostalgia) is important tounderstand how they respond to and keep up with thisdynamism. The tension between locally conceived andglobally conceived products is paralleled in the sociologicalnotion of in-group versus out-group social space, which isstrongly felt among people who are high on ethnocentrism(Shimp and Sharma 1987). Finally, critical theorists havefrequently criticized consumer culture—with its focus onconsumption—for its impact on the physical space, namely,the environment (e.g., Held et al. 1999). Such criticism islikely to resonate especially among consumers who are highon environmentalism.

Value Type Definition Exemplary Values

Power Social status andprestige, control or

dominance over peopleand resources

Social power,authority, wealth

Achievement Personal successthrough demonstratingcompetence according

to social standards

Successful,capable,ambitious

Hedonism Pleasure and sensuousgratification for oneself

Pleasure,enjoying life

Stimulation Excitement, novelty,and challenge in life

Daring, variedlife, an exciting

lifeSelf-direction Independent thought

and action-choosing,creating, exploring

Creativity,curious, freedom

Universalism Understanding,appreciation, tolerance,and protection for thewelfare of all people

and nature

Broadminded,social justice,

equality,protecting theenvironment

Benevolence Preservation andenhancement of the

welfare of peoplewith whom one is infrequent personal

contact

Helpful, honest,forgiving

Tradition Respect, commitment,and acceptance of the

customs and ideasthat culture or religion

provide

Humble, devout,accepting myportion in life

Conformity Restraints of actions,inclinations, and

impulses likely to upsetor harm others and

violate socialexpectations or norms

Politeness,obedient,

honoring one’sparents or elders

Security Safety, harmony, andstability of society, ofrelationships, and of

self

Social order,clean

TABLE 2Value Types in Schwartz’s Value Theory

Source: Excerpted from Schwartz (1992).

Materialism. A distinguishing feature of consumer cul-ture is the idea that prodigious consumption is a measure ofsuccess in life (Bauman 1997). This notion is reflected inthe construct of materialism, which refers to a centrally heldbelief about the importance of material possessions in a per-son’s life (Richins and Dawson 1992, p. 308). People whovalue materialism believe that owning many, and preferablyexpensive, material objects is an important goal in life. Workby critical theorists such as Holton (2000) and Ritzer (2007)suggests that materialism is especially implicated in consump-tion of global products, given GCC’s emphasis on sellingdreams of affluence, personal success, and self-gratification.

Consumer innovativeness. Consumer innovativenessrefers to the importance people attach to buying new prod-ucts at an early stage rather than remaining with previouschoices and consumption patterns (Steenkamp, Ter Hof-stede, and Wedel 1999). Innovative consumers seek to ful-fill their need for change through new consumption experi-ences (Steenkamp and Gielens 2003). Global productsstand for modernity and progress, and their consumption isa new phenomenon that is undergoing rapid change. Thesequalities are likely to appeal to innovative consumers.2

Nostalgia. Nostalgia refers to a need to go back to thepast, when things were presumably better (Holbrook 1993).Nostalgic people have difficulty accepting the present—letalone the future—as being equally good if not better thanthe past. In the past, a person’s consumption environmentwas local, while the present and the future involve globalproducts to an ever-greater degree. To complicate things,nostalgic people may not encounter the idealized past intoday’s local-product offering because local companiesadapt their product portfolio to the growing threat of globalproducts (Kotabe and Helsen 2010). Thus, nostalgic con-sumers may experience “an acute sense of alienation” asthey experience a lack of cultural certainty, or an absence ofclear guidelines for how life is to be lived and how to inter-pret their experience (Arnett 2002, p. 778).

Consumer ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism represents acentrally held belief that a person’s own group is the normof things and that his or her behavior should be focused onmaintenance of the in-group. Ethnocentric consumersbelieve that purchasing foreign products is wrong because ithurts the economy and leads to loss of jobs. They cherishtheir own culture, symbols, and products, while they dispar-age other cultures, even going so far as to hold them in con-tempt (Shimp and Sharma 1987). Conversely, people lowon consumer ethnocentrism tend to be more cosmopolitanand outward looking.

Environmentalism. Environmentalism has emerged as atopic of vital concern to consumers and society (Grunertand Juhl 1995; The World Bank 2003). The relationshipsbetween environmentalism and AGP and ALP are far fromclear though. It could be argued that people who attach


great importance to the environment reject consumption ingeneral because of its (perceived) polluting effects. How-ever, such strident environmentalism may be relatively rare.An argument can be made for what Tomlinson (1999, p.182) calls “environmental ‘localist’ fundamentalism” andthe local ethics of “nimbyism,” which refers to “concern forone’s immediate environment and indifference towards oth-ers.” This suggests that a positive ALP and environmental-ism may go together. To complicate things further, environ-mentalism has strong overtones of universalism, and thereis widespread awareness that “our common humanityshares our common environment” (Tomlinson 1999, p. 77).Indeed, the focus on the global and the local may not evenbe mutually exclusive, as encapsulated by the famousmaxim of the environmental movement: “Think globally,act locally” (Tomlinson 1999, p. 183).

Sociodemographic Covariates

In our framework, we also include sociodemographics ascovariates. Although such variables are theoretically less“rich” than values, they are managerially actionable (e.g.,for market segmentation). Sociodemographics are usuallyof minor importance in explaining consumer phenomena,but ethnographic studies provide some initial evidence thatthey may play a more prominent role in AGP and ALP. Forexample, Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006) document glo-calization practices among the youth segment, and Holt(1998) highlights the role of people’s class-based, sociocul-tural resources to negotiate global meanings and practicesin their daily lives.

However, to date, no large-scale, quantitative researchexists on the sociodemographic profile of AGP and ALP.Are there sociodemographic segments that hold positiveattitudes toward both global and local products or segmentsthat are negatively disposed toward products, whether theybe imbued with global or local cultural content? To answerthese questions, we incorporate a wide range of sociodemo-graphics—age, sex, education, social class, household size,and income change—to make maximum use of our exten-sive database to derive generalizable empirical insights, ifany. Table 3 summarizes our predictions. We now turn to anempirical investigation of these predictions.

MethodData Collection

The global marketing research agencies GfK and TNS (for-merly Taylor Nelson Sofres) collected the data in demo-graphically diverse samples of respondents in 28 countriesin Western Europe (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France,Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland), Central/Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Roma-nia, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine), Asia (China, Japan, Taiwan,Thailand), South America (Argentina, Brazil), and NorthAmerica (the United States). A Web survey was used incountries in which the Internet is widespread. In other coun-tries, mall intercepts were used, in which respondents either

2Steenkamp and Gielens (2003) find that the effect of innova-tiveness on behavior is stronger for more novel products. To theextent that global products are more strongly associated with theintroduction of radically new products than local products, thisshould further strengthen the effect of innovativeness on AGP.

filled out the questionnaire on laptops or completed a hard-copy version. The total number of respondents was 13,112.

Measurement of AGP and ALP

Triandis (see Triandis, Chen, and Chan 1998; Triandis andGelfand 1998) proposes and validates the use of descriptiveresponse options (called “scenarios”) with a forced-choiceformat to measure cultural attitudes. In his work, eachresponse option represents a particular cultural species. Weadopted Triandis’s measurement procedure. We constructeda multi-item scale in which each item pertains to a specificproduct domain central to consumer culture. Several prod-uct categories have been consistently recognized as beingcentral to consumer culture. As the most visible marketingsymbol, brands are generally regarded as a key componentof consumer culture (Holt 2002; McCracken 1986). In hiswork on cultural capital, Holt (1998, p. 7) identifies food,clothing, home furnishings, entertainment (music, televi-sion, movies), and lifestyle (vacations, sports, hobbies) asimportant cultural product categories. Slater (1997) high-lights the role of entertainment (p. 15) and lifestyle (p. 87).Finally, Tomlinson (1999, p. 83) identifies clothes, food,entertainment (music, firm, television), furnishings, andbrands as “cultural goods around the world.”

In line with this body of work, we included the productdomains lifestyle, entertainment, home furnishings, foods,clothing, and brands in our AGP/ALP measurement instru-ment. For each of the six items (product domains), therespondent selected one scenario from the four scenariosprovided that most closely matched their preference. Thesescenarios represent the four ideal types of attitudinal combi-nations in Figure 1: preference for global products (homog-enization), preference for local products (localization), pref-erence for combining global and local products inconsumption repertoire (glocalization), and lack of interestin local and global products (glalienation). Our measure-ment approach is consistent with Eagly and Chaiken’s(1998, p. 269) position on attitudes: “As an internal state, anattitude is not directly observable [we use a latent variableapproach] but is inferred from observable responses [i.e.,the scenarios we selected] … which consist of evaluativeresponding [respondents selected the scenario that most


closely matched their preferences] that occurs in conjunc-tion with the stimuli [the six product domains] that denotethe evaluated entity [these product domains have been con-sistently identified as being key components of consumerculture].” For the measurement instrument, see the Appen-dix. We adapted a subset of our measurement items fromthe work of Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006).

Following Triandis, Chen, and Chan (1998), Triandisand Gelfand (1998), and Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra(2006), we purposefully chose a multicategory, forced-choice response format rather than a rating scale. Sociallydesirable responding is an important concern in cross-national research (Steenkamp, De Jong, and Baumgartner2010). A forced-choice format reduces the impact of thisresponse tendency because respondents must “consider thesocial desirability of all four elements [response categories],which is more difficult than judging the social desirabilityof a single element” (Triandis, Chen, and Chan 1998, p.277). Thus, it is not surprising that the multicategoryforced-choice format is widely used in psychology and edu-cation (e.g., Bolt, Cohen, and Wollack 2001; Van der Lin-den and Hambleton 1997).

We pretested our AGP/ALP instrument on a sample of243 U.S. consumers. As part of a larger questionnaire, weadministered the six-item multicategory AGP/ALP instru-ment together with items measuring constructs that shouldbe theoretically related to AGP and ALP. The validationconstructs were based on those of Appadurai (1996) andTomlinson (1999), and we measured them with multipleitems, using seven-point rating scales (the only exceptionwas foreign travel, which we assessed with a single fre-quency item). We estimated the AGP and ALP latent scoresusing the nominal item response theory (IRT) modeldescribed subsequently. The correlation between latentscores was –.320, which is significantly different from –1(p < .001). Respondents high on AGP had more social con-tacts with foreigners (r = .460), more exposure to foreigncountries in their childhood (r = .176), greater consumptionof foreign mass media (r = .516), more experience travelingabroad in the last two years (r = .360), and more interest inforeign lifestyles (r = .562). People with higher ALP wereless prone to have traveled abroad in the recent past (r =

Attitude Toward …National-Cultural

Values General Values

Consumer Values

Object Context Time

Global products Traditional/secular–rational (+)

Survival/self-expression (–)

No sinusoidpattern but rather

strong positiverelationships with

stimulation, power,and universalism

Materialism (+)Innovativeness (+)

Consumerethnocentrism (–)Environmentalism

(+/–)

Nostalgia (–)

Local products Traditional/secular–rational (–)

Survival/self-expression (–)

Sinusoid shapewith peak fortradition and

security and troughfor stimulation and

self-direction

Materialism (+) Consumerethnocentrism (+)Environmentalism

(+/–)

Nostalgia (+/–)

TABLE 3Summary of the Expected Relationships Between Values and AGP and ALP

–.142), had less interest in foreign lifestyles (r = –.220), hadless contact with foreigners (r = –.293), and had lower con-sumption of foreign mass media (r = –.123).3 The pattern ofcorrelations provides initial support for the nomologicalvalidity of our measurement instrument.

Measurement of Antecedents

General values. We measured respondents’ generalvalue structure using Schwartz’s (1992) value survey. Thesurvey consists of 45 values, covering all value domains,and exhibits a high level of consistency in motivationalmeaning across cultures (Schwartz and Sagiv 1995). Weadhered closely to the guidelines Schwartz (1992) provideson how to measure the values. We listed each value by adescriptive name (e.g., “equality”) with a short explanationin parentheses (e.g., “equal opportunity for all”). Respon-dents rated each value as a guiding principle in their liveson a scale ranging from –1 to 7 (–1 = “opposed to my val-ues,” 0 = “not important,” 3 = “important,” and 7 = “ofsupreme importance”).

Consumer values. We measured materialism with sixitems taken from Richins and Dawson (1992) and consumerinnovativeness with eight items taken from Steenkamp andGielens (2003). We measured consumer ethnocentrism withfour items taken from Shimp and Sharma (1987), environ-mentalism with three items taken from Grunert and Juhl(1995), and nostalgia with two items taken from Holbrook(1993). We offered items in a random order, and partici-pants rated them on five-point Likert scales. For most mea-sures, we used a short-form version that performed well inprevious research (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006;Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, and Wedel 1999).

National-cultural values. We measured country scoreson the traditionalism/secular–rational and survival/self-expression dimensions taken from Inglehart and Welzel(2005).

Sociodemographics. We collected information on age,sex, household size, the number of years of formal educa-tion, social class (six categories from lower class to upperclass), and evolution of household income in the last threeyears (five categories from “gone down a lot” to “gone up alot”).

Analytical Procedure

We need to relate the categorical observed responses to thesix items to the underlying continuous latent variables ofAGP and ALP. In turn, we posit that the individual-levelscores on AGP and ALP are related to general values, con-sumer values, and sociodemographics and that the country-level, aggregate scores on AGP and ALP are related tonational-cultural values. These relationships need to be esti-mated in a hierarchical, cross-national context, in whichconsumers are nested within countries.

Our measurement model defines operating characteris-tics for each response category such that the probability of


response, conditional on the latent variables, is restricted tosum to unity (Bock 1972). As in other latent variable mod-els, the probability of a given pattern of item response canbe expressed as the product of the corresponding categorycharacteristics conditional on the latent variables. Theprobability that a respondent i in country j (j = 1, …, 28),with latent values AGPij, ALPij will respond to item k (k =1, …, 6) in nominal response category c (c = 1, …, 4) isgiven by

where

(2) Zijkc = ξkc + akc,1AGPij + akc,2ALPij.

The term Zijkc can be regarded as the unobserved preferenceof respondent i from country j for response category c in thecontext of product domain k.4 The parameter ξkc indicates acategory response “easiness” parameter, with more positive(negative) values being associated with a greater easiness(greater difficulty) of the response category being chosen.The parameters akc,1 and akc,2 refer to the discriminationparameter for the underlying attitudes toward global and localproducts, respectively.5 We allow the easiness and discrimina-tion parameters to vary across items and response categories.

We define the multivariate logit as the vector with ele-ments Zijk1, Zijk2, Zijk3, and Zijk4. An important property ofEquation 1 is the invariance with respect to translation ofthe logit, which implies that the elements of this vector maybe subjected to a linear restriction (Bock 1972) such as thefollowing:

This implies that the item parameters in Equation 2 are sub-ject to the same restriction:

Because both latent variables influence each observeditem, a model without restrictions is overparameterized and

( ) Prexp

exp,1 X c

Z

Zijk

ijkc

ijkhh

=( ) = ( )( )∑

( ) .3 01

4

Zijkcc =∑ =

( ) , , ., ,4 0 0 011

4

21

4

1

4

a akcc

kcc

kcc= = =

∑ ∑ ∑= = =ξ

3Correlations exceeding the absolute value of .106 (.127, .167)are significant at 10% (5%, 1%).

4Logit models are the standard in psychometrics. The logitstructure allows for closed-form expressions of the choice proba-bilities, which reduces complexity and greatly helps estimation. Alimitation of the logit model is that it makes the assumption ofindependence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA). Although the IIAassumption is an issue in brand choice models (in which, conse-quently, probit models are favored), this is not true for the types ofdata encountered in psychometrics.

5In IRT models, it is common to talk about “difficulty” parame-ters. However, in our model, a more positive value of ξ is associ-ated with lower “difficulty,” which is exactly the reverse of stan-dard IRT models. Therefore, to avoid confusion, we talk abouteasiness parameters. Discrimination parameters are conceptuallysimilar to factor loadings in confirmatory factor analysis models(De Jong and Steenkamp 2010).

suffers from rotational indeterminacies. To identify themodel, we follow Béguin and Glas (2001) and place theory-based sign restrictions on the discrimination parameters.Our confirmatory setting dictates that for the homogeniza-tion response a.,1 should be positive and a.,2 should be nega-tive because a rise in AGP (ALP) should have a positive(negative) effect on the tendency to opt for global productsonly. For the localization response, the opposite is true. Forthe glocalization response, a rise in both AGP and ALPwould give rise to an increase in the likelihood of theresponse option. Finally, with glalienation, a rise in bothAGP and ALP would negatively affect the odds of selectingthe response option.

Although the sign of the discrimination parameters isfixed, it is the magnitude of the discrimination parametersand easiness parameters (which are freely estimated) thatdetermines the shape of the probability surfaces in Equation1. To arrive at the probability of any particular response fora specific item, we need to take into account the discrimina-tion and easiness parameters for the focal response and forthe other three responses options (see Equations 1 and 2).

Note that Equation 2 posits that the observed responsesacross the range of product domains can be explained bypeople’s underlying, latent generalized AGP and ALP.6

There is empirical support for our position on AGP andALP as generalized attitudinal constructs when the overallmodel fit and fit for each item are good, when reliability isgood, when conditional on the latent AGP and ALP traitsthe nominal item scores are independent, and when themagnitude of discrimination parameters is as expected (thislast condition indicates convergent validity for the individ-ual product domains and response options).

Respondents’ latent scores on AGP and ALP are relatedto individual-level antecedents, which yields the followingLevel 1 (individual-level) model:

(5) AGPij = Wijββj,1 + εij,1, and

(6) AGPij = Wijββj,2 + εij,2,

where Wij contains general values, consumer values, andsociodemographics. To fix the scale, the variances of AGPand ALP scores are set equal to 1. We allow the error termsεij,1 and εij,2 to be correlated through a bivariate normalstructure; that is,

Our theorizing further posits that a country’s aggregatescores on AGP and ALP are predictably related to the coun-try’s score on traditionalism/secular–rational and survival/self-expression. Moreover, we examine whether the effectof each general and consumer value, as well as the socio-demographics, varies across countries as a function of the

εε

ρρ

ij

ijMVN,

,~ ,1

2

00

11

.


country’s national-cultural values makeup. This yields thefollowing model at Level 2 (the country level):7

(7) ββj,1 = γγ1Zj + uj,1, and

(8) ββj,2 = γγ2Zj + uj,2,

where Zj contains the two Inglehart dimensions and uj,1 anduj,2 are multivariate normally distributed error vectors withexpected value of zero and covariance matrices T1 and T2,respectively.

Estimation and Model Fit

We cast our model in a Bayesian framework, and we obtainthe full probability model by specifying prior distributionsfor all parameters. We use standard noninformative priors(normal distributions for means structure and inverseWishart distributions for variance–covariance matrices) forthe parameters. The only parameter that merits additionalattention is the correlation parameter σ. Because it isbounded in the interval [–1, 1], we use a normal prior forthe hyperbolic arctangent of σ. The function atanh(σ) mapsthe parameter to the real line. Estimation then proceeds bydrawing from the posterior distributions of the parameters.

To assess model fit, we use posterior predictive checks.If the model fits the data, the frequency distribution of theobserved nominal responses for each item should resemblefrequency distributions generated from the posterior predic-tive distribution (for a similar approach, see Béguin andGlas 2001). In addition, we investigate local independenceamong pairs of item response categories using Yen’s Q3 sta-tistic (Bolt, Cohen, and Wollack 2001). In IRT models,local stochastic independence refers to the assumption thatresponses to different items are independent given the latentvariable values (this is conceptually similar to unidimen-sionality in confirmatory factor analysis). A procedurebased on Yen’s Q3 statistic is useful in the current context.Under the assumption of local independence, the correla-tions should be approximately normally distributed (Yen1984). A residual correlation of zero implies that the latentconsumer attitudes account for the dependence amongresponse categories.

ResultsPsychometric Assessment of AGP/ALPInstrument

We performed several psychometric assessments of the AGP/ALP instrument. First, the close correspondence betweenthe global observed and the posterior predictive frequency

6Note that AGP and ALP in Equation 2 only have subscripts iand j, not a subscript k.

7We employ (1) individual-level predictors Wij to explain differ-ences in individual-level attitudes (we estimate Equations 5 and 6at the individual level) and (2) country-level predictors to explaindifferences in country-level (aggregate) parameters (we estimateEquations 7 and 8 at the country level). By matching the level ofaggregation of predictor and criterion variables, our model specifi-cation avoids the ecological fallacy that will result if inferences aredrawn about individual-level behavior from aggregate national-cultural variables (Adamopoulos 2008).

distribution per item (product domain) indicates that ourmodel achieved good overall fit and that the latent variablesexplain the variation in all items.8 Fit at the country level isalso good. Second, the 95% credible interval for all posteriordiscrimination parameters always excludes zero, and themagnitudes of the discrimination parameters are as expected.Third, we test for local independence of item response cate-gories, using Yen’s Q3 statistic. The Kolmogorov–Smirnovtest indicates that the hypothesis of normally distributedresiduals cannot be rejected (Z = .545, p > .10). The averageresidual correlation is a negligible .007, indicating that wedo not need more than our two latent variables (AGP andALP) to explain the observed variation in item scores.Fourth, the correlation between consumers’ latent scores onAGP and ALP is significantly (p < .001) below (minus)unity: r = –.431. Fifth, the measurement instrument is reli-able. The reliability of AGP is .95, and the reliability ofALP is .91.

Sixth, as we mentioned previously, one reason to use amulticategory, forced-choice format is to lessen potentialcontamination with socially desirable responding (Triandis,Chen, and Chan 1998). Our global questionnaire alsoincluded the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding(BIDR). We regressed AGP and ALP scores on the twocomponents of the BIDR—self-deceptive enhancement andimpression management. All four standardized regressioncoefficients are well below the cutoff of |.20| thatSteenkamp, De Jong, and Baumgartner (2010) recommendas indicative of a nonnegligible relationship to sociallydesirable responding.

Figure 4 shows the within-country distribution of AGPand ALP scores for the world’s four-largest economies: theUnited States, Japan, China, and Germany. In all four coun-tries, there is a wide distribution in scores on both con-structs, indicating considerable heterogeneity in attitudeswithin each country. Not only is there substantial variationin scores within countries, but we also find that, on average,some countries score much higher on AGP and/or ALP thanother countries. Figure 5 shows the location of the countrieson AGP and ALP. It is noteworthy that the United Statesrates higher on average on ALP and lower on AGP thanmost other countries in our sample. This is consistent withthe observation that the United States is a disproportionate“producer” of global content (Holton 2000), which for U.S.consumers feels like local imagery (Alden, Steenkamp, andBatra 1999, p. 78). These results show that consumers differsystematically on AGP and ALP and that these attitudes arenot just specific for a particular product but rather are gen-eralized attitudes across a wide variety of product domains.

Measurement Properties of Antecedents

We derived construct scores for general values and con-sumer values using the IRT-based procedures that De Jong,Steenkamp, and Fox (2007) and De Jong, Steenkamp, andVeldkamp (2009) propose, which do not require items to beinvariant across countries. Construct reliabilities are all


above .60 (see also Tellis, Prabhu, and Chandy 2009). Wetest for discriminant validity between the survey constructsby constraining the correlations, one at a time, betweenconstruct scores for general values, consumer values, AGP,and ALP to unity. In general, the correlations among ourpredictor variables are low, and the maximum varianceinflation factor is only 2.84. These findings indicate thatmulticollinearity is not an issue in our latent variable model(Grewal, Cote, and Baumgartner 2004).

Antecedents of AGP/ALP: Main Effects

We build our model by consecutively adding groups ofantecedents to our set of predictors of AGP and ALP. Recallthat our conceptual framework (Figure 2) specifies that eachblock of constructs adds to our understanding of AGP andALP. As a baseline model, we estimated a model with a ran-dom intercept but no individual-level or country-level pre-dictors. The Level 1 variances for AGP and ALP are .725and .651, and the Level 2 variances are .181 and .215,respectively. Thus, 20.0% (24.8%) of the variation in AGP(ALP) is between countries. The first model includes onlythe most basic set of predictors, namely, the sociodemo-graphic covariates. Subsequently, we add general values(Model M2), consumer values (Model M3), and national-cultural values (Model M4).

After we add the sociodemographics (M1), the Level 1variances decrease to .643 (AGP) and .621 (ALP), respec-tively. Thus, sociodemographics explain 11.3% of individ-ual differences in AGP and 4.7% of individual differencesin ALP. Adding the general values (M2) explains an addi-tional 5.4% of the variance in AGP and 5.2% of the vari-ance in ALP. Consumer values (M3) explain another 7.1%of the variance in AGP and 4.1% of the variance in ALP.Finally, we include the national-cultural values (M4), whichexplain 60.2% of the cross-national variation in AGP and53.1% of the cross-national variation in ALP.

Table 4 reports the unstandardized regression coeffi-cients for each model.9 The high degree of stability ofparameter estimates across the different model specifica-tions attests to the robustness of our results. The decrease inthe error variance between models is always significant (p <.001), which provides basic support for our theory because,indeed, each group of drivers contributes to explaining AGPand ALP. Thus, we focus on Model 4. Unless indicated oth-erwise, in our subsequent discussion, the parameters aresignificant at 5%.10

Table 4, Panel A, shows that AGP is positively related tothe importance a person attaches to power, stimulation, anduniversalism values, while it is negatively related to tradi-tion and conformity. Thus, the general-values profile ofAGP is more complex than Schwartz’s (1992) sinusoidtheory suggests but is consistent with the idea that AGP aremultifaceted, having both universalism and power connota-

8Details are available on request.

9We examined whether responses differed between question-naire administration (hardcopy versus online) by adding a dummyvariable in the equations for the country intercept. In neither of thecases was the dummy significant.

10A 95% credible interval that does not contain zero is inter-preted as “significant at 5% in frequentist terms.”

tions, which are diametrically opposed to each other (Figure3). We further propose that people high on AGP are morematerialistic and innovative, though less ethnocentric andnostalgic.

We obtain a clear sociodemographic profile of AGP.People most positively inclined toward consumption ofglobal products are the younger, female elite (higher edu-cated, higher social class), with small households. Socio-demographic segments that do not possess all these charac-teristics will be lower in AGP, but the specific coefficientswe report in Table 4, Panel A, show the relative trade-offs.


For example, the predicted AGP of a man aged 25 is higherthan that of a woman aged 40.

Finally, we find support for the expectation that, on aver-age, some countries are higher on AGP than other countriesbecause of systematic differences in the national-culturalvalue priorities of the country in which they live. Specifi-cally, AGP is lower in countries high on self-expression,and it is higher in secular–rational countries.

In contrast to AGP, ALP closely follows the sinusoidpattern posited in Schwartz’s (1992) theory (see Table 4,Panel B). It is positively associated with the importance

FIGURE 4Intensity Map Posterior AGP and ALP Scores for the World’s Four Largest Economies

A: United States

C: China

B: Germany

D: Japan

given to tradition, conformity, and especially security val-ues, and it is negatively associated with the importancegiven to stimulation and self-direction values. The magni-tude of the effects of the other value types lies in betweenthese extremes and is nonsignificant.

Materialistic people are more positive not only aboutglobal products but also about local products. This runscounter to the alleged near equivalence of materialism withGCC that is present in the work of critical theorists, such asHolton (2000) and Ritzer (2007). However, it is consistentwith the notion that materialism is an integral element ofconsumer culture, whether it is globally or locally con-ceived. People high on ALP are also more ethnocentric andless nostalgic. We find no evidence that environmentalismis associated with rejection of all consumer culture. Rather,we find support for the notion that people who attach highimportance to environmentalism tend to embrace localproducts. This result is foreshadowed by Lash and Urry’s(1994, p. 305) contention that “for most people, the envi-ronment is their locality.”

In terms of sociodemographics, we find that olderpeople, women, and those who have recently experiencedan increase in income hold more positive ALP. Thus,women hold more positive attitudes toward both local andglobal products than men. Finally, we find that ALP is


higher in traditional countries than in secular–rational coun-tries. In addition, ALP is higher in survival countries than inself-expression countries.11

Interactions Between National Culture andIndividual-Level Antecedents

An attractive feature of hierarchical models is that in addi-tion to examining main effects, we can explore whether the

11It has been suggested that general values work through con-sumer values in affecting consumer attitudes (e.g., Van Raaij andVerhallen 1994). For mediation to occur, the effects of the generalvalues on AGP/ALP should be much reduced/become insignificantwhen we add consumer values to the model. We estimated theeffects of the general values on the consumer values. Innovative-ness is primarily related to stimulation; materialism to hedonism,achievement, and (especially) power; consumer ethnocentrism topower and tradition; nostalgia to tradition; and environmentalismto universalism. However, as Table 4 shows, the direct effect esti-mates of the general values, after we control for the consumer val-ues (Model M3), are not much smaller than their total effects(Model M2). On average, only 23% of the total effect is mediatedby consumer values. Furthermore, 10 of 11 significant effects ofthe general values remain significant after we added consumer val-ues. Thus, although we find some effects of general values on con-sumer values, we do not find strong evidence that consumer valuesmediate the effect of general values on AGP and ALP.

United Kingdom

Germany

Ireland

France

Austria

Netherlands Belgium

ItalyNorway

Slovakia

Poland

Sweden

Denmark

Hungary

Romania

United States

Argentina

Portugal

SwitzerlandCzech RepTaiwan

RussiaUkraine

Brazil

Thailand

China

Spain

Japan

FIGURE 5Location of Countries on AGP and ALP

.8

.3

–.2

–.7

–1.2–1.1 –.6 .1 .4 .9 1.4

ALP

AGP

Notes: Scores are relative to a mean score of zero on ALP and AGP across countries.

effect of specific individual-level antecedents varies acrosscountries in function of their different national culture.After all, the shared cultural priorities in society create


social reinforcement contingencies to which people mustadapt to function smoothly and effectively. These positiveor negative institutional reinforcement mechanisms give

TABLE 4Posterior Mean Estimates

A: Estimates of Effects on AGP

Predictor M1 M2 M3 M4 M5

Intercept .200 .205 .201 .202 .200Sociodemographics

Age –.014 –.011 –.008 –.008 –.009Sex (1 = women) .072 .084 .068 .068 .070Education .058 .049 .043 .043 .045Social class .072 .063 .042 .042 .041Household size –.019 –.011 –.011 –.011 –.011Income change .012 .011 .002 .001 .002

General ValuesPower .063 .036 .036 .040Achievement .025 .004 .003 –.001Hedonism .035 .014 .015 .012Stimulation .090 .073 .073 .063Self-direction .018 .010 .009 .012Universalism .055 .067 .068 .068Benevolence –.010 –.005 –.004 –.002Tradition –.050 –.023 –.022 –.021Conformity –.075 –.061 –.063 –.059Security –.043 –.038 –.038 –.036

Consumer ValuesMaterialism .170 .169 .167Innovativeness .355 .357 .359Consumer ethnocentrism –.099 –.099 –.102Nostalgia –.066 –.066 –.067Environmentalism .016 .016 .016

National-Cultural ValuesTraditional/secular–rational .120 .142Survival/self-expression –.054 –.069

Cross-Level InteractionsAge × self-expression .001Universalism × self-expression .022Universalism × Secular–rational –.020Consumer ethnocentrism × secular–rational .022

B: Estimates of Effects on ALP


Intercept .070 .066 .048 .049 .060Sociodemographics

Age .008 .006 .005 .005 .005Sex (1 = women) .047 .042 .046 .047 .046Education –.025 –.009 –.001 –.003 .001Social class .005 .008 .014 .014 .015Household size .015 .008 .008 .008 .008Income change .014 .014 .013 .013 .012

General ValuesPower .015 –.029 –.028 –.029Achievement .014 .010 .009 .010Hedonism .002 .002 .004 –.000Stimulation –.063 –.056 –.056 –.050Self-direction –.064 –.043 –.043 –.048Universalism –.006 –.015 –.015 –.018Benevolence –.021 –.008 –.008 –.001Tradition .067 .054 .053 .053Conformity .033 .030 .030 .035Security .118 .109 .109 .109

rise to interactions between society-level and individual-level variables. National-cultural value priorities of a par-ticular country will encourage the expression of individual-level values that are congruent with these national-culturalvalue priorities, while the expression of values that runcounter to those national-value priorities are discouraged(Smith and Schwartz 1997). Mathematically, this is expressedas cross-level interactions between national-cultural valuesand individual drivers.12

Rather than estimating all possible interactions, whichwould lead to unstable results and multicollinearity, we adoptthe following procedure: We restrict ourselves to individual-level antecedents for which the variance of the randomcomponent is significant, indicating that the effect variesacross countries. Next, for those constructs, we estimate theinteractions with the two Inglehart dimensions. We retaininteractions that are significant at p < .05. We report theresults as Model M5 in Table 4, Panels A and B. We graph-ically depict the seven significant interactions in Figure 6,showing the effect of a particular individual-level variablefor one standard deviation below the mean versus one stan-dard deviation above the mean for countries that rate veryhigh (+2) versus very low (–2) on the national-culturaldimension involved.

We find that the effects of consumer ethnocentrism aremore pronounced in traditional societies than in secular–rational countries. That is, ethnocentrism has a strongerpositive effect on ALP and a stronger negative effect onAGP the more traditional the society is. This result is intui-tive, given the basic congruence between the emphasis tra-


ditional societies place on national pride and protectionismand the goal of ethnocentrism, which is to protect one’scountry and employment through purchase of locally madeproducts. We further find that the positive effect of theimportance attached to universalism on AGP is larger inself-expression societies than in survival countries. Thisfinding is consistent with the basic psychological congru-ence between embracing universalism and the orientation ofself-expression societies on the wider world.

We also find several interactions involving the socio-demographics age and social class. The positive effect ofage on ALP and the negative effect of age on AGP arestronger in survival societies than in self-expressionsocieties. Young people in survival societies have the mostpositive AGP. Their cultural capital is low, and they mayhave most to gain by embracing the progress and modernitysignified by global products.

Finally, we observe that the effect of social class onALP is affected by national culture. The effect of socialclass on appreciation of local products is negative in lessadvanced survival and traditional countries. In thesesocieties, the social elite turns away from local products,which may be perceived as old-fashioned, if not outrightbackward. Our finding is broadly consistent with Belk’s(2000, p. 13) argument that “the rise of global consumptionideals, potentially makes the elite among Third World con-sumers into cosmopolitans who are more concerned withhow they compare to the world’s privileged consumers thanthey are to compare themselves locally.” The opposite effectis found in secular and self-expression societies, in whichhigher social classes may “rediscover” unique, “authentic”aspects of local products.

General DiscussionIn this article, we examine the constellation of AGP andALP in a global setting. We propose a fully crossed struc-ture AGP and ALP, which gives rise to four types ofresponses to the joint forces of globalization and localiza-tion: homogenization, glocalization, localization, andglalienation. We link AGP and ALP to three groups of val-

12Note that we neither hypothesize nor employ the Inglehartnational-cultural framework to explain individual-level behavior.Our focus is on whether the effect of a particular antecedent ofAGCC or ALCC varies systematically across countries, due to theirvarying national-cultural context. To illustrate, consider the effectof consumer ethnocentrism on AGCC. The strength of the effectmay vary across countries, and cross-level interactions try toexplain the between-country variation in the strength of the effectusing the respective country scores on the Inglehart dimensions.Thus, the cross-level interactions work on country-level data. Thisapproach avoids the ecological fallacy (Adamopoulos 2008).

TABLE 4Continued


Consumer ValuesMaterialism .099 .099 .109Innovativeness –.049 –.046 –.032Consumer ethnocentrism .083 .083 .082Nostalgia –.050 –.051 –.052Environmentalism .023 .023 .018

National-Cultural ValuesTraditional/secular–rational –.220 –.190Survival/self-expression –.096 –.114

Cross-Level InteractionsAge × self-expression –.002Universalism × self-expression .017Universalism × secular–rational .021Consumer ethnocentrism × secular–rational –.019

Notes: Parameter estimates in bold are significant at p < .05.


-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

AgeA

GP

Self-expression

.4

.3

.2

.10

–.1–.2–.3–.4–.5–.6

Age

AGP

Survival

FIGURE 6Moderating Effect of National-Cultural Values on Individual-Level Antecedents of AGP and ALP

A: AGP

B: ALP

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Universalism

AG

P

Self-expression

.8

.7

.6

.5

.4

.3

.2

.1

0Universalism

AGP

Survival

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Ethnocentrism

AG

P

Traditional

.6

.4

.2

0

–.2

–.4

–.6

–.8

–1Ethnocentrism

AGP

Secular–rational

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Age

AL

P

Self-expression

1

.8

.6

.4

.2

0

–.2Age

ALP

Survival

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Social class

AL

P

Secular–rational

.4

.3

.2

.1

0

–.1

–.2

–.3

Social Class

ALP

Traditional

-0.1

-0.05

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

Social class

AL

P

Self-expression

.30

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0

–.05

–.10

Social Class

ALP

Survival

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Ethnocentrism

AL

P

Secular–rational

.6

.4

.2

0

–.2

–.4

–.6

–.8

1Ethnocentrism

ALP

Traditional

ues, with sociodemographics as covariates. We use a dedi-cated data set across 28 countries, with large, demographi-cally diverse samples of consumers.

We find that some antecedents exhibit directionally thesame (significant) effect on AGP and ALP (materialism,nostalgia, survival/self-expression, and the covariate sex).Other antecedents exhibit directionally opposite effects onAGP and ALP. Stimulation has a positive effect on AGP,while its effect on ALP is negative. Conversely, tradition,conformity, consumer ethnocentrism, traditional/secular–rational, and the covariate age have a positive effect on ALPbut a negative effect on AGP. Finally, some antecedentsaffect only ALP (self-direction, security, environmentalism,and the covariate income change) or AGP (power; univer-salism; innovativeness; and the covariates education, socialclass, and household size). We also uncover several cross-level interactions.

Our findings provide support for the existence of con-sumer AGP and ALP that generalizes across productdomains and for our conceptual framework of antecedentsof AGP and ALP. The intricate pattern of antecedent effectsis broadly supportive of our theorizing (Table 3) and showsthat ALP and AGP are complex and distinct, yet relatedconstructs. The AGP and ALP constructs are not polaropposites, and to fully understand the important attitudes,we need to consider values at different levels of abstraction.


In summary, our findings reveal a global profile ofantecedents associated with different combinations of AGPand ALP. Table 4 provides detailed results, but it is also use-ful to summarize our findings, in terms of both directionand significance of effects (see Figure 7). Although theeffects are continuous, putting them in a 3 × 3 table is use-ful to convey the core findings. Although we should be cau-tious in relating Figure 7 to Figure 1 (because Figure 1 is inlevels, while Figure 7 presents slopes), we can nonethelessconstruct a profile of each of the four consumer responsesto the forces of globalization and localization.

People exhibiting a homogenization response, builtaround the utilitarian convenience of global products andpeople’s associated dreams of success and global citizen-ship, are younger, high on stimulation, and low on ethno-centrism. They reject tradition and conformity. On average,this response will be evaluated more positively insecular–rational societies. Conversely, people who favor thelocalization response, preferring local products and reject-ing global products, are older, ethnocentric people whovalue tradition and conformity. This response is more com-mon in traditional cultures. People who prefer the glocaliza-tion response, desiring to creatively combine both local andglobal products in their consumption repertoire, tend to beforward-looking women who value materialism. On aver-age, this response option is evaluated more positively in

FIGURE 7Summary of Effects

Negative EffectAGP

ALP

No Effect Positive Effect

Neg

ativ

e E

ffect

No

Effe

ctP

ositi

ve E

ffect

•Nostalgia•Sex: male•National-cultural self-expression

•Emphasis of self-direction values •Emphasis on stimulation•National-cultural secular–rational

•Household size

•Emphasis on achievement•Emphasis on hedonism•Emphasis on benevolence

•Emphasis on universalism andpower

•Innovative•Education•Social class•Effect of universalism stronger inself-expression societies

•Emphasis on tradition and conformity

•Ethnocentrism•Age•National-cultural traditional•Effect of ethnocentrism strongerin traditional societies

•Effect of age stronger in survivalsocieties

•Emphasis on security values•Environmentalism•Increase in household income

•Materialism•Sex: female•National-cultural survival•Social class in self-expressionand secular–rational societies

survival countries. Finally, the glalienation response, indi-cating alienation from the (alleged) shallow world of con-sumer products in general, whether they are locally or glob-ally conceived, is evaluated more positively amongbackward-looking (nostalgic) men, who reject materialismand live in self-expressive countries.

Managerial Implications

Brand portfolios. Many international companies arealtering their brand portfolios, shedding local brands whilefavoring global brands—brands that consumers can findunder the same name in multiple countries with generallysimilar and centrally coordinated marketing strategies(Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). The prevalence ofALP in different countries (see Figure 4) indicates thatinternational companies should be careful in relying toomuch on global brands because this strategy may not workwell with large segments of consumers. A carefully craftedportfolio of local and global brands may be preferable to anoveremphasis on global brands. One company that pursuessuch a strategy with considerable success is the beer com-pany Anheuser-Busch InBev. It has a carefully craftedbrand portfolio that contains both global beer brands (Bud-weiser, Stella Artois, Beck’s) and local “champions,” suchas Sibirskaya Korona (Russia), with “a heritage dating backto the time of the Tsars”; Chernigivske (Ukraine), with “astrong connection to national pride and identity”; andAntarctica (Brazil), which sponsors “regional culturalevents that emphasize its main characteristics: quality,authenticity, relaxation, and fun” (Anheuser-Busch InBev2010, pp. 22–23).

Positioning strategies for global firms. Alden,Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) document the widespread useof GCC and LCC positioning strategies by brand managersaround the world. A GCC positioning strategy shouldappeal to consumers high on AGP, while a LCC positioningstrategy should be attractive to consumers high on ALP(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). Our empirical find-ings can help managers evaluate receptivity to GCC versusLCC for individual countries. This can be done by multiply-ing the (publicly available) country scores on the Inglehartdimensions by their regression estimates reported in Table 4(Model M4). To illustrate, consider a manager who contem-plates a push into Eastern Europe and wants to find out howthe emerging countries Turkey and Slovenia score on AGPand ALP to evaluate whether LCC or GCC is more likely tobe successful in terms of market acceptance. By multiply-ing the scores for Turkey on the self-expression (–.33) andsecular–rational (–.89) dimensions (Inglehart and Welzel2005) with their respective parameter estimates (Table 4),we find that Turkey has a high ALP score compared withthe countries in our sample. In contrast, Turkey’s AGP scoreis rather low (significantly below the country mean AGPscore). This suggests that a LCC brand positioning strategyis called for in Turkey. A similar type of analysis for Slove-nia (with self-expression score of .38 and secular–rationalscore of .95) reveals that Slovenia’s AGP score is higher


than most countries in our sample, while the ALP score israther low. Thus, GCC positioning might be preferred inSlovenia. Recommendations can be refined by taking thecharacteristics of the target segment into consideration.

Global account management. Global account manage-ment (GAM) treats a customer’s operations worldwide asone integrated account, with coherent terms for pricing,product specifications, positioning, and service. In the lastdecade, GAM programs have proliferated, but success hasbeen mixed at best. Although the customer firm’s headquar-ters might be committed to the global strategy that isrequired for GAM to be successful, local subsidiaries incountries in which AGP are negative are prone to obstructthe GAM program because they know that much more cus-tomization of products and services is required in their mar-kets (Yip and Bink 2007). In addition, GAM actors mayneed to be locals instead of foreigners and may need to beplaced at the regional level so that local environmental con-ditions are properly understood. Using the model estimatesto evaluate how countries score on AGP and ALP helps themanagement at headquarters understand the countries inwhich local adaptation of GAM is necessary. Such a contin-gent approach will lead to greater acceptance by local sub-sidiaries and greater global effectiveness (see Grewal,Chandrashekaran, and Dwyer 2008).

Strategies for local firms. We should not forget that thebusiness arena also includes local firms whose survival isconstantly threatened by competition from internationalfirms. If local firms try to outcompete international firms oneconomies of scale and scope, they are essentially playingthe game at which the latter companies excel. Instead, localfirms can better create consumer value by leveraging theadvantage that is inherent to their context and compete onlocal cultural relevance. Ger (1999, p. 71) calls local culture“the most accessible yet least utilized resource for localfirms.” She argues (p. 71) that for local firms pursuing sucha strategy, “finding and targeting segments likely to respondpositively to the possible offerings are the key success fac-tors in any competitive strategy.” Segmenting the market onALP and using the results reported in Table 4, Panel B, tofind and target the segments can help local firms pursuesuch a focused localization strategy.

Sociodemographic segmentation. Previously, we sug-gested the potential of our model estimates for segmenta-tion purposes (Model M4 in Table 4). We conclude by high-lighting the actionability of a subset of our results forsegmentation, namely, the findings for sociodemographics.(Model M1). Special attention to sociodemographics iswarranted because they are the Holy Grail of market seg-mentation. Sociodemographic segments are easy to con-struct, the resultant strategies are easy to implement, andthe segments are readily accessible because of wide avail-ability of media profiles. Unfortunately, sociodemographicsusually are of little use for segmentation purposes becauseof their negligible relationship to relevant attitudes andbehavior (Wedel and Kamakura 2000). However, this gen-

eral finding does not apply to AGP and ALP. Indeed,sociodemographics explain a substantial percentage of vari-ance in the attitudes, on par with (ALP) or clearly exceed-ing (AGP) the predictive power of either general values orconsumer values. The results we report for Model M1(Table 4) can be used for assessing receptivity to global andlocal positioning strategies for different global target seg-ments. We can refine this analysis by taking into accountthat the effects of age and social class are moderated by thenational-cultural environment.

Further Research

The values-based framework can be extended by includingindividual-level cultural values. What is the structure ofindividual-level cultural values? The logical assumption isthat their structure mirrors the national-cultural value struc-ture. However, work by Bearden, Money, and Nevins(2006) and Schwartz (1994) shows that this is not the case.Thus, researchers need to employ frameworks that havebeen developed for the individual level. A prime candidateis Triandis’s (e.g., Triandis and Gelfand 1998) four-factorialindividualism/collectivism–horizontal/vertical framework.We urgently need additional theorizing and empiricalresearch to understand the commonalities and differencesbetween individual-level and national-level cultural valuesframeworks, how Triandis’s framework is related toSchwartz’s (1992) framework, and how individual-level andnational-level cultural values frameworks can be integrated.

Prior literature has examined the conditions underwhich consumers are influenced most by cultural values(e.g., Aaker 2000; Briley and Aaker 2006). This stream ofresearch finds that the state of mind and situation can affectthe influence of cultural values on consumer judgments anddecisions. Our model does not disentangle the importanceof individual-level versus cultural-level influences in spe-cific situations and mind-sets. Experimental methods aremore suited than survey methods for studying these issues.

Additional research is needed to explore in depth therelationship between GCC/LCC and AGP/ALP. We arguedthat the conceptual rationale for proposing the existence ofgeneralized consumer AGP (ALP) can be found in the cen-tral role of product consumption in contemporary GCC(LCC). However, we need to know more about howglobal/local products are imbued with global/local culturalcontent. Which consumer cultural rituals, practices, sym-bols, and artifacts are especially important in cementing thelink between GCC/LCC and global/local products? Howcan marketers use this information to better position theirbrands on GCC, LCC, or possibly a combination of thetwo? To address these questions, we advocate microanaly-ses of consumer cultures, using the qualitative techniquesthat consumer culture theory researchers employ (Arnouldand Thompson 2005). These qualitative techniques can addrich theoretical insights that inform us about the differentshapes and facets of GCC and LCC, which may direct andenrich subsequent large-scale (survey) research. This willresult in a virtuous cycle of the kind that Bass (1995) advo-


cates: Theoretical explanation of marketing phenomena(through qualitative microstudies) informs subsequentinvestigation of the marketing relevance of the theoreticalexplanations (through large-scale survey research), whichwill direct microstudies to unresolved issues, and so on.

AppendixAGP/ALP Measurement Instrument

Entertainment1. I enjoy entertainment that I think is popular in many coun-tries around the world more than traditional entertainmentthat is popular in my own country.

2. I enjoy traditional entertainment that is popular in my owncountry as well as entertainment that I think is popular inmany countries around the world.

3. I enjoy traditional entertainment that is popular in my owncountry more than entertainment that I think is popular inmany countries around the world.

4. I don’t enjoy most entertainment, whether it’s traditionallypopular in my own country or popular in many countriesaround the world.

Furnishings1. I prefer to have home furnishings that I think are popular inmany countries around the world rather than furnishingsthat are considered traditional in my own country.

2. I prefer mixing home furnishings that are traditional in myown country with furnishings that I think are popular inmany countries around the world.

3. I prefer to have home furnishings that are traditional in mycountry rather than furnishings that I think are popular inmany countries around the world.

4. I don’t really like my own country’s traditional home fur-nishings or furnishings that I think are popular in manycountries around the world.

Clothing1. I like to wear clothing that I think is popular in many coun-tries around the world more than clothing that is tradition-ally popular in my own country.

2. I like to alternate or mix choices so that I wear clothing thatis traditionally popular in my own country as well as cloth-ing that I think is popular in many countries around theworld.

3. I like to wear clothing that is traditionally popular in myown country more than clothing that I think is popular inmany countries around the world.

4. I don’t care whether you’re talking about the traditionalclothing in my own country or clothing that I think is popu-lar in many countries around the world, I am not interestedin clothing.

Food1. I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many countriesaround the world more than my own country’s traditionalfoods.

2. I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods as well as foodsthat I think are popular in many countries around the world.

3. I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods more than foodsthat I think are popular in many countries around the world.

4. I don’t really enjoy my own country’s traditional foods, nordo I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many countriesaround the world.

Lifestyle1. I prefer to have a lifestyle that I think is similar to thelifestyle of consumers in many countries around the worldrather than the traditional lifestyle in my own country.

2. I prefer to blend the traditional lifestyle in my own countrywith a lifestyle that I think is similar to the lifestyle of con-sumers in many countries around the world.

3. I prefer to have a lifestyle that is traditional in my owncountry rather than one that I think is similar to the lifestyleof consumers in many countries around the world.

4. To be honest, I don’t find the traditional lifestyle in my owncountry or the consumer lifestyle that is similar in manycountries around the world very interesting.


Brands1. I prefer to buy brands that I think are bought by consumersin many countries around the world rather than local brandsthat are sold only in my country.

2. I prefer to buy both local brands that are sold only in mycountry and brands that I think are bought by consumers inmany countries around the world.

3. I prefer to buy local brands that are sold only in my countryrather than brands that I think are bought by consumers inmany countries around the world.

4. I couldn’t care less about the countries associated with anybrand; brand names mean nothing to me.

For each consumption domain, we asked respondents toplace a tick in front of the one statement that best describedtheir feelings. For each domain, statements 1–4 are indica-tive of a positive AGP combined with a negative ALP, posi-tive AGP/positive ALP, negative AGP/positive ALP, andnegative AGP/negative ALP, respectively.

Béguin, Anton A. and Cees A.W. Glas (2001), “MCMC Estimationand Some Model-Fit Analysis of Multidimensional IRT Mod-els,” Psychometrika, 66 (December), 541–62.

Belk, Russell W. (2000), “Consumption Patterns of the New Elitein Zimbabwe,” Working Paper No. 288, York University.

Bock, R. Darrell (1972), “Estimating Item Parameters and LatentAbility When Responses Are Scored in Two or More NominalCategories,” Psychometrika, 37 (March), 29–51.

Bolt, Daniel M., Allan S. Cohen, and James A. Wollack (2001), “AMixture Item Response Model for Multiple-Choice Data,”Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26 (4),381–409.

Briley, Donnel A. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2006), “When Does Cul-ture Matter? Effects of Personal Knowledge on the Correctionof Culture-Based Judgments,” Journal of Marketing Research,43 (August), 395–408.

Burgess, Steven (1992), “Personal Values and ConsumerResearch: An Historical Perspective,” in Research in Market-ing, Vol. 11, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,35–79.

Crane, Diana (2002), “Culture and Globalization,” in Global Cul-ture: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization, Diana Crane,Nobuko Kawashima, and Kenichi Kawasaki, eds. New York:Routledge, 1–25.

De Jong, Martijn G. and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2010),“Finite Mixture Multilevel Multidimensional Ordinal IRTModels for Large Scale Cross-Cultural Research,” Psychome-trika, 75 (March), 3–32.

———, ———, and Jean-Paul Fox (2007), “Relaxing Measure-ment Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research Using aHierarchical IRT Model,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34(August), 260–78.

———, ———, and Bernard P. Veldkamp (2009), “A Model forthe Construction of Country-Specific yet Internationally Com-parable Short-Form Marketing Scales,” Marketing Science, 28(July–August), 674–89.

Eagly, Alice H. and Shelley Chaiken (1998), “Attitude Structureand Function,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed.,Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, eds.Boston: McGraw-Hill, 269–322.

Ger, Güliz (1999), “Localizing in the Global Village: Local FirmsCompeting in Global Markets,” California ManagementReview, 41 (Summer), 64–83.

REFERENCESAaker, Jennifer L. (2000), “Accessibility or Diagnosticity? Disen-

tangling the Influence of Culture on Persuasion Processes andAttitudes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (March),340–57.

Adamopoulos, John (2008), “On the Entanglement of Culture andIndividual Behavior,” in Multilevel Analysis of Individuals andCultures, Fons J.R. van de Vijver, Dianne A. van Hemert, andYpe H. Poortinga, eds. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-ciates, 27–62.

Ajzen, Icek (2001), “Nature and Operation of Attitudes,” AnnualReview of Psychology, 52, 27–58.

Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra(1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, NorthAmerica, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.

———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Consumer Attitudes TowardMarketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents, and Conse-quences,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(September), 227–39.

Anheuser-Busch InBev (2010), “Dream & Deliver: Annual Report2009,” (accessed July 21, 2010), [available at http://www.ab-inbev.com/go/media/annual_report_2009/dream_and_deliver.cfm].

Appadurai, Arjun (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimen-sions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.

Arnett, Jeffrey J. (2002), “The Psychology of Globalization,”American Psychologist, 57 (October), 774–83.

Arnould Eric J. and Craig J. Thompson (2005), “Consumer Cul-ture Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 31 (March), 868–83.

Bass, Frank M. (1995), “Empirical Generalizations and MarketingScience: A Personal View,” Marketing Science, 14 (3–2),G6–G19.

Batra, Rajeev, Pamela M. Homer, and Lynn R. Kahle (2001), “Val-ues, Susceptibility to Normative Influence, and AttributeImportance Weights: A Nomological Analysis,” Journal ofConsumer Psychology, 11 (2), 115–28.

Bauman, Zygmunt (1997), Postmodernity and Its Discontents.New York: New York University Press.

Bearden, William O., R. Bruce Money, and Jennifer L. Nevins(2006), “Multidimensional Versus Unidimensional Measures inAssessing National Culture Values: The Hofstede VSM 94Example,” Journal of Business Research, 59 (2), 195–203.

Ghemawat, Pankaj (2007), Redefining Global Strategy. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.

Giddens, Anthony (1990), The Consequences of Modernity. Cam-bridge, UK: Polity Press.

Grewal, Rajdeep, Murali Chandrashekaran, and F. Robert Dwyer(2008), “Navigating Local Environments with Global Strate-gies: A Contingency Model of Multinational Subsidiary Perfor-mance,” Marketing Science, 27 (5), 886–902.

———, Joseph A. Cote, and Hans Baumgartner (2004), “Multi-collinearity and Measurement Error in Structural EquationModels: Implications for Theory Testing,” Marketing Science,23 (4), 519–29.

Grunert, Suzanne C. and Hans J. Juhl (1995), “Values, Environ-mental Attitudes, and Buying of Organic Foods,” Journal ofEconomic Psychology, 16 (1), 39–62.

Held, David, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt, and JonathanPerraton (1999), Global Transformations. Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Hofstede, Geert (1998), “Attitudes, Values, and OrganizationalCulture: Disentangling the Concepts,” Organization Studies, 19(3), 477–92.

——— (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2d ed. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Holbrook, Morris B. (1993), “Nostalgia and Consumption Prefer-ences: Some Emerging Patterns of Consumer Tastes,” Journalof Consumer Research, 20 (September), 245–56.

Holt, Douglas B. (1998), “Does Cultural Capital Structure Ameri-can Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June),1–25.

——— (2002), “Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A DialecticalTheory of Consumer Culture and Branding” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 29 (June), 70–90.

Holton, Robert (2000), “Globalization’s Cultural Consequences,”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sci-ence, 570 (July), 140–52.

Homer, Pamela M. and Lynn R. Kahle (1988), “A Structural Equa-tion Test of the Value-Attitude-Behavior Hierarchy,” Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54 (4), 638–46.

Inglehart, Ronald and Wayne E. Baker (2000), “Modernization,Cultural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values,”American Sociological Review, 65 (February), 19–51.

——— and Christian Welzel (2005), Modernization, CulturalChange, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kahle, Lynn R., ed. (1983), Social Values and Social Change. NewYork: Praeger.

Keegan, Warren J. (1969), “Multinational Product Planning:Strategic Alternatives,” Journal of Marketing, 33 (January),58–62.

Kinra, Neelam (2006), “The Effect of Country-of-Origin on For-eign Brand Names in the Indian Market,” Marketing Intelli-gence and Planning, 24 (1), 15–30.

Kjeldgaard, Dannie and Soren Askegaard (2006), “The Glocaliza-tion of Youth Culture: The Global Youth Segment as Structuresof Common Difference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33(September), 231–47.

Kotabe, Massaki and Kristiaan Helsen (2010), Global MarketingManagement, 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Lash, Scott M. and John Urry (1994), Economies of Signs andSpace. London: Sage Publications.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), “The Globalization of Markets,” HarvardBusiness Review, 61 (May–June), 92–102.

McCracken, Grant (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theo-retical Account of the Structure and Movement of the CulturalMeaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research,13 (June), 71–84.

Richins, Marsha L. and Scott Dawson (1992), “A Consumer Val-ues Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale


Development and Validation,” Journal of Consumer Research,19 (December), 303–316.

Ritzer, George (2004), The McDonaldization of Society. ThousandOaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

——— (2007), The Globalization of Nothing 2, Thousand Oaks,CA: Pine Forge Press.

Rokeach, Milton J. (1973), The Nature of Human Values. NewYork: The Free Press.

Schuiling, Isabelle and Jean-Noel Kapferer (2004), “Real Differ-ences Between Local and International Brands: StrategicImplications for International Marketers,” Journal of Interna-tional Marketing, 12 (4), 97–112.

Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content andStructure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Testsin 20 Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychol-ogy, Vol. 25, Mark Zanna, ed. Orlando: Academic Press, 1–65.

——— (1994), “Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cul-tural Dimensions of Value,” in Individualism and Collectivism:Theory, Method, and Applications, U. Kim, Harry C. Triandis,C. Kagitcibasi, S.C. Choi, and G. Yoon, eds. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications, 85–119.

——— and Lilach Sagiv (1995), “Identifying Culture-Specifics inthe Content and Structure of Values,” Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 26 (January), 92–116.

Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Eth-nocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,”Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89.

Slater, Don (1997), Consumer Culture & Modernity. Cambridge,UK: Polity.

Smith, Peter B. and Shalom H. Schwartz (1997), “Values,” inHandbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Social Behavior andApplications, 2d ed., John W. Berry, Marshall H. Segall, andCigdem Kagitcibasi, eds. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 77–118.

Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2005), “Moving Out of the U.S.Silo: A Call to Arms for Conducting International MarketingResearch,” Journal of Marketing, 69 (October), 6–8.

———, Rajeev Batra, and Dana Alden (2003), “How PerceivedBrand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal of Interna-tional Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.

———, Martijn G. de Jong, and Hans Baumgartner (2010),“Socially Desirable Response Tendencies in Survey Research,”Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (April), 199–214.

——— and Inge Geyskens (2006), “How Country CharacteristicsAffect the Perceived Value of Web Sites,” Journal of Market-ing, 70 (July), 136–50.

——— and Katrijn Gielens (2003), “Consumer and Market Dri-vers of the Trial Rate of New Consumer Products,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 30 (December), 368–84.

———, Frenkel ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), “ACross-National Investigation into the Individual and National-Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal ofMarketing, 63 (April), 55–69.

Steger, Manfred B. (2003), Globalization. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda L. Price (2008),“Branded Products as a Passport to Global Citizenship: Per-spectives from Developed and Developing Countries,” Journalof International Marketing, 16 (4), 57–85.

Tellis, Gerard J., Jaideep C. Prabhu, and Rajesh K. Chandy (2009),“Radical Innovation Across Nations: The Preeminence of Cor-porate Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (January), 3–23.

Thompson, Craig J. and Zeynep Arsel (2004), “The StarbucksBrandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences ofGlocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (Decem-ber), 631–42.

Tomlinson, John (1999), Globalization and Culture. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Triandis, Harry C., Xiao P. Chen, and Darius K.-S. Chan (1998),“Scenarios for the Measurement of Collectivism and Individu-alism,” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (2), 275–89.

——— and Michele Gelfand (1998), “Converging Measurementof Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74 (1), 118–28.

Van der Linden, Wim J. and Ronald K. Hambleton (1997), Hand-book of Modern Item Response Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Van Raaij, W. Fred and Theo M.M. Verhallen (1994), “Domain-Specific Market Segmentation,” European Journal of Market-ing, 28 (10), 49–66.

Verplanken, Bas and Rob W. Holland (2002), “Motivated DecisionMaking: Effects of Activation and Self-Centrality of Values onChoices and Behavior,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 82 (3), 434–47.

Vinken, Henk, Joseph Soeters, and Peter Ester (2004), ComparingCultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective.Boston: Brill.


Vinson, David E., Jerome E. Scott, and Lawrence M. Lamont(1977), “The Role of Personal Values in Marketing and Con-sumer Behavior,” Journal of Marketing, 41 (April), 44–50.

Wedel, Michel and Wagner A. Kamakura (2000), Market Segmen-tation: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations. Boston:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

The World Bank (2003), “Sustainable Development in a DynamicWorld,” World Development Report.

Yen, Wendy M. (1984), “Effects of Local Item Dependence on theFit and Equating Performance of the Three-Parameter LogisticModel,” Applied Psychological Measurement, 8 (2), 125–45.

Yip, George S. (2003), Total Global Strategy, 2d ed. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice Hall.

——— and Audrey J.M. Bink (2007), “Managing GlobalAccounts,” Harvard Business Review, 85 (September),103–111.

a global investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes toward global and local products

Documents