Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism impacts on preference

and purchase of domestic versus import brands: An empirical study
in China
Jiaxun He a, Cheng Lu Wang b,
a
b

Department of Business Administration, School of Business, East China Normal University, China
Department of Marketing & Quantitative Analysis, College of Business, University of New Haven, West Haven, CT 06516, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Available online 1 December 2014

Keywords:
Cultural identity
Consumer ethnocentrism
Brand equity
Domestic vs. import brand
Brand preference
Brand purchasing

a b s t r a c t
Drawing from a large sample of consumer survey in ve major cities of China, this empirical study examines
different underlying mechanisms of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism constructs. Furthermore, it
investigates their different impacts on consumer preferences and buying behavior regarding domestic vs. import
brands based on a group of hypotheses derived from theoretical conceptualizations. Test results demonstrate that
cultural identity enhances both preference and purchasing of domestic brands. On the other hand, consumer
ethnocentrism has a negative impact on relative preference for import brands but not on actual buying of domestic or import brands. Moderating role of brand equity is also examined. Theoretical contribution and managerial
impactions based on such ndings are provided.
2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Firms often use brands as symbolic and experiential resources from
which consumers can link their identity with nation or culture (Aaker,
Benet-Martinez, & Garolera, 2001). For example, Meters/bonwe, one of
China's most popular domestic casual wear apparel brands, recently
launched I am a new China made brand campaign. The campaign
theme is based on a newfound sense of pride in their national culture
with an emphasis on Chinese elements (Faber, 2012; Wang & Lin,
2009). Indeed, due to their relatively weakly perceived product quality
and/or brand equity compared to the well-known global brands, Chinese
domestic rms often use cultural identity to appeal to Chinese consumers. The present study addresses whether or not such a marketing
positioning strategy is effective in persuading Chinese consumers to
buy domestic brands.
A review of the extant literature reveals a dearth of academic inquiry
about how such national/cultural identity campaigns inuence Chinese
consumers' preference and purchase behavior of domestic vs. import
brands. Meanwhile, when talking about one's identity with his/her
national culture, distinguishing the cultural identity construct from
the widely used consumer ethnocentrism construct is important. Consumer ethnocentrism refers to a moral obligation to protect national
industries from foreign competitors (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Our
We greatly appreciate Ning Li, the guest editor of the special issue, Arch Woodside,
the JBR Editor-in-Chief, and three anonymous reviewers, who provided constructive
comments on our early versions of the manuscript. We also thank Yinglin Hu for her
help at the earlier stage of this research.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 203 932 7209.
E-mail addresses: jxhe@dbm.ecnu.edu.cn (J. He), cwang@newhaven.edu (C.L. Wang).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.11.017
0148-2963/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

comprehensive review of the extant literature on such a research

stream reveals important conceptual and methodological gaps that
warrant further investigations.
First, cultural identity (CI) and consumer ethnocentrism (CE) have
different focuses and different sentiments toward domestic and import
brands. There are several studies that examined the inuence of consumer ethnocentrism on Chinese consumers domestic buying bias
(e.g., Ishii, 2009; Wang & Chen, 2004), but no empirical investigations
regarding how cultural identity inuences consumer choice between
domestic and import brands. Moreover, the different underlying mechanisms of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism have not been
examined and compared.
Second, existing studies regarding the impact of ethnocentrism
on consumer choice between domestic and import products predominantly employ consumer attitude, preference, willingness-to-buy and/
or purchase intention as dependent measures. While behavior intention
is often a good indicator or a proxy measure of actual purchase
(Schlosser, 2003), the relationship between stated preference and actual purchase behavior can be strong in certain circumstances but weak
in other situations because of complex environmental and situational
variables that are beyond control. Such a preferencepurchase behavior
relationship will be especially mitigated when an import brand is widely
perceived of as high quality and more prestigious in technologically less
advanced countries like China (Wang & Chen, 2004).
Third, as consumer ethnocentrism concept suggests a reverse relation
between an increase in buying domestic and a declining interest in foreign products, a common dependent measure used in such studies is
the domestic buying bias, with an assumption that it also means a
rejection of foreign products. However, it is important to note that

1226

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

measuring consumer willingness to buy a domestic product does not

automatically imply their reluctance to buy foreign products (Suh &
Kwon, 2003). We argue that buying a domestic brand may be out of
one's pride of domestic culture (cultural identity) but not necessary lead
him/her to reject import brands. The term import brand used here is
based on brand origin instead of manufactured origin, as evidence
showing consumers often prefer for a particular brand sourced from its
origin (i.e., HQ country) (Samiee, 2010). Therefore, even a foreign brand
(e.g., Nike) is manufactured in China; it is most likely to be perceived by
Chinese consumers as an import brand. On the other hand, rejecting an
import brand may be due to concerns of protecting national economies
(consumer ethnocentrism) but not necessary reecting one's internal
preference for domestic brands. As such, researchers have called for empirical studies that integrate outcome measures for both domestic product bias and foreign product bias (Vida, Dmitrovic, & Obadia, 2008). For
such a purpose, buying domestic brands and buying import brands are
measured separately in this study.
To ll such signicant voids in the extant literature, the objective of
this empirical study is three-fold: First, it investigates the unique inuences of cultural identity on consumer preference and purchase behavior in China, where domestic rms face intense competition from strong
multinational companies for the world's largest emerging consumer
market. Second, it compares different underlying mechanisms between
cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism constructs and their
different impacts on preference and purchasing bias toward foreign
brands. Third, it examines the relationship between consumer preferences and actual purchasing behavior in terms of both outcome measures of domestic brand bias and import brand bias. In following
sections, we rst introduce the theoretical and conceptual background,
on which the key hypotheses are derived and developed. Next, we
report our empirical study results that test such hypotheses. Finally,
the ndings and their theoretical contributions and managerial implications are discussed.

especially important for people of collective cultures, like China, because

people often identify his/her self-concept or self-schema based on his/
her connections with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Wang &
Mowen, 1997; Wang, Bristol, Mowen, & Chakraborty, 2000). Consequently, due to China's long history and rich cultural heritage, which
are highly valued by consumers, the inuence of cultural identity on
consumer behavior will be more observable than that found in individualistic Western societies (Wang & Lin, 2009; Yau, 1988).
Cultural identity differs from consumer ethnocentrism in terms of
their psychological mechanisms. Cultural identity is based on collective
identication of one's culture while consumer ethnocentrism is based
on nationalism mindset. In particular, cultural identity reects a positive
feeling toward one's own culture with a socio-psychological emphasis
while consumer ethnocentrism is out of negative sentiment toward
out-group or other countries with an economic emphasis (Verlegh,
2007). Therefore, instead of focusing on one's own culture, consumer
ethnocentrism reects a tendency for individuals to reject those from
out-groups based on a belief that it is inappropriate, immoral or unpatriotic, to buy products from other countries (Shimp & Sharma, 1987;
Sharma, Shimp, & Shin, 1995).
Both cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism tend to inuence consumers to prefer domestic brands to import brands. However,
the former is more out of internal feelings but the latter is largely
based on external social norm or a prescriptive course of actions, i.e.
what consumers should do with respect to their consumption practices
in order to prevent adverse effects on domestic employment and the
economic welfare of their country (Pecotich & Rosenthal, 2001;
Sharma et al., 1995). Based on our review of cultural identity and
consumer ethnocentrism theories, a brief comparison between the
impact of CI and CE on consumer choice of domestic vs. import brand
is summarized in Table 1. Because of the different mechanisms of these
two constructs, we argue that CI and CE would inuence consumer
brand preference and brand purchasing differently.

2. Theoretical background and conceptual development

2.2. Brand preference

2.1. Cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism

Consumers' identication with a particular culture will inuence

their preferences for products or brands symbolically associated with
their culture. A well developed, strong sense of cultural identity provides meanings and symbolic values of one's belongings to people
from the same culture. Even when people emigrate to another country,
they may lose their nationality but keep their cultural identity by consuming products that carry symbolic meanings related to their original
culture. For instance, many overseas Chinese continue using their language, wearing traditional costume, celebrating their traditional holidays, decorating their homes in Chinese style, and eating Chinese food
to maintain their cultural heritage. As a product or a brand carrying
the symbolic meaning of one's cultural element will enhance one's
self-identity (Aaker et al., 2001), a consumer's attachment to his/her
cultural heritage and national symbols will transcend directly into product or brand preference for domestic over import brands. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are developed.

Cultural identity refers to the extent to which people in a given

culture recognize and identify with a set of focal elements that set the
culture apart from others (Clark, 1990). Therefore, cultural identity construct differs from the general national identity construct, which is
based on four founding elements (religion, history, custom and social
structure) within the borders of a country (Huntington, 1993; Keillor,
Hult, Erffmeyer, & Babakus, 1996). While the former emphasizes a link
with the historical development and cultural heritage, the latter focuses
on national territory, homeland, common legal rights and duties for
all members (Smith, 1991). In other words, cultural identity represents
the incorporation of cultural heritage into the individual's self-concept,
and is therefore distinguishable from nationality and other categories
like race, birthplace, and religion (Cleveland, Laroche, & Papadopoulos,
2009). Since nationality is not the most salient factor in particular situations in an overall sense of identity (Sussman, 2000), distinguishing
cultural identity from national identity may lead to a better understanding of business outcomes resulted from cultural factors other than
nationality (Jameson, 2007).
The conceptualization of cultural identity in this study is built on
theories of self-concept and collective identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
As a historical reservoir, culture is an important factor in shaping
one's identity (Pratt, 2005). Cultural identity, according to Jameson
(2007), is one part of a large concept of individual identity (p. 207)
and an internal state that depends on self-perception (p. 209). In
essence, cultural identity is a form of collective identication binding
people together based on common historical and cultural heritage.
People from the same culture share their customs, practices, languages,
values and world views that dene their community. Cultural identity is

H1a. Cultural identity associates positively with preference for a

domestic brand.
H1b. Cultural identity associates negatively with preference for an
import brand.
Ethnocentrism was originally conceived as a purely sociological concept that distinguished between in-groups and out-groups (Sumner,
1906). By denition, consumer ethnocentrism represents one's beliefs
about the appropriateness and moral legitimacy of purchasing domestic
products while against foreign products (Shimp & Sharma, 1987). A
high tendency of consumer ethnocentrism is found to be associated
with more patriotic and conservative (Sharma et al., 1995) but less
world mindedness (Balabanis, Diamantopoulos, Mueller, & Melewar,

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

1227

Table 1
Inuence of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism on consumer response to domestic vs. import brands.

Psychological mechanism

Attitude to domestic brands

Attitude to import brands
Preference and behavior links

Cultural identity

Consumer ethnocentrism

Identify one's cultural heritage

A socio-psychological focus
A positive feeling toward one's cultural heritage
Love domestic brands due to their symbolic cultural meanings

Not necessary reject import brands

Preference for import/domestic brands tends to be consistent
with brand purchase due to internal feelings

2001). The tendency of ethnocentric consumers to exhibit preferences for domestic rather than imported products has been well documented in the literature (Cleveland et al., 2009; Rawwas, Rajendran, &
Wuehrer, 1998; Sharma et al., 1995; Vida et al., 2008). A normative
response to brand of origin may inuence consumer preference formation and induce consumers' compliance to the feeling of nationalism
(Pecotich & Rosenthal, 2001). Accordingly, the following hypotheses
are developed.

Nationalism
An economical focus
A negative sentiment toward out-group or other country
Prefer domestic brands due to normative responsibility
but not necessary like them
Reject import brands because moral legitimacy
Preference for import/ domestic brands may not be consistent
with brand purchase due to external norm

H3b. Cultural identity associates negatively with purchase of import

brands.

H2b. Consumer ethnocentrism associates negatively with preference

for an import brand.

On the other hand, for consumer ethnocentrism, it is important to

note that since a preference for domestic products over import products
comes from consumer's moral obligation and normative responsibility
rather than from an internal belief or true feelings, the relationship between brand preference and brand purchase is less stable and less predictable when other environmental and situational factors are involved
in purchasing. Consequently, one's brand purchase may or may not
necessarily follow his/her stated preference in the same direction.
Therefore, no particular pattern of the relationship between consumer
ethnocentrism and actual purchasing behavior is hypothesized in this
regard.

2.3. Brand purchase

2.4. Moderation of brand equity

Behavior intention may be an intervening variable between consumer attitude, preference and nal purchase behavior. Marketing
research often uses purchase intention as a proxy measure of purchasing behavior based on the assumption that purchase intentions are
good indicators of consumers' purchase behavior (Chandon, Morwitz,
& Reinartz, 2005; Infosino, 1986). However, consumer preference and
behavior intention may be different from actual purchasing, as existing
evidence from a meta-analysis shows substantial variation among the
correlations from .15 to .92 (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988).
Such variation may be caused by different factors, for example situation
changes (e.g., income, peer pressure, special promotions) during actual
purchasing (Infosino, 1986) and systematic biases in reports of behavior
intentions (Kahneman & Snell, 1992). Research also shows the apparent
insignicance of country of origin as a consideration in purchase decisions (Samiee, 2010, p. 443). Such a complex relation between stated
preference and actual purchasing or ownership of brands would be particularly unstable when consumers from less economically developed
or less technologically advanced countries face the dilemma of tradeoff
between a high quality, conspicuous foreign brand and a morally wrong
foreign brand (Wang & Chen, 2004).
However, cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism would also
inuence consumer purchasing behavior differently because of the different mechanisms of these two constructs. A consumer having high
cultural identity tends to sincerely believe and like a product/brand
that is associated with his/her cultural identity. According to the
social-identity model of motivation, a consumer's social self-identity is
necessary for the pursuit and achievement of identity-related goals in
terms of one's social roles (Oyserman, 2007). A favorable image of
one's own national culture will affect purchasing behavior, as suggested
in country images research (Laroche, Papadopoulos, Heslop, & Mourali,
2005; Wang, Li, Barns, & Anh, 2012). It is expected that cultural identity
will lead to an internal disposition toward choosing domestic over import brands and such preference is more likely to transfer to one's actual
purchasing. Therefore, the following hypotheses are developed.

Brand equity is the source of brand value added to a product or service in the marketplace (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993). Brand equity often
promises a product's quality, performance, or other dimensions of
value, which can inuence consumers' choices. When consumers trust
a brand, they may select products associated with that brand over
those of competitors, even at a premium price (Aaker, 1991; Keller,
1993). High brand equity, according to Aaker (1991), possesses certain
strengths, including differentiation, satisfaction, loyalty, perceived quality, leadership, popularity, perceived value, brand personality, organizational associations, brand awareness, market share, market price and
distribution coverage. Empirical evidence provides strong support for
the claim that a brand with higher equity would generate signicantly
greater preferences and purchase intentions (Cobb-Walgren, Ruble, &
Donthu, 1995; Dodds, Monroe, & Grewal, 1991). Therefore, we expect
that brand equity will moderate the effect of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism on brand preference and brand purchasing. However, such moderation effects may also differ between cultural identity
and consumer ethnocentrism.
Cultural identity, as discussed above, is derived from one's affective
response to one's culture and therefore one's preference for domestic
over import brands largely comes from one's cognition (a trust on domestic brand) and feeling (a love for domestic product). As such, if a domestic
brand is perceived of as having high brand equity, it will enhance both
consumer preference and purchase of domestic brands. The moderation
hypotheses are further developed.

H2a. Consumer ethnocentrism associates positively with preference for

a domestic brand.

H3a. Cultural identity associates positively with purchase of domestic

brands.

H4a. The positive relationship between cultural identity and preference

for a domestic brand is stronger when the domestic brand is perceived
having high versus low brand equity.
H4b. The positive relationship between cultural identity and actual
purchase of a domestic brand is stronger when the domestic brand is
perceived has having high versus low brand equity.
If an import brand is perceived of high brand equity, it will dampen
the negative relationship between cultural identity and relative
preference/actual purchase of import brands. Research shows that
symbolic benets (such as modernity, prestige, and associations with

1228

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

foreign lifestyles) constitute one of the primary motivating forces of

Chinese consumers' purchases of foreign products (Wang & Chen,
2004; Wang, Siu, & Hui, 2004; Zhou & Hui, 2003). If an import brand
is believed to possess higher brand equity or more prestigious image
than domestic brands, consumers may show off their wealth by purchasing imports (Ger, Belk, & Lascu, 1993). The following hypotheses
are developed based on such reasoning.
H5a. The negative relationship between cultural identity and preference for an import brand diminishes or reverses when an import
brand is perceived as having high versus low brand equity.

Table 2
Sample prole and tested products.
Category

Number

Percent

Male
Female

448
464

49.1%
50.9%

Married
Single/unmarried

500
412

54.8%
45.2%

Above 45
3544
2534
Below 24

146
208
267
291

16.0%
22.8%
29.3%
31.9%

Shanghai
Nanchang
Shenzhen
Kunming
Hangzhou

210
175
176
173
178

23.0%
19.2%
19.3%
19.0%
19.5%

Above 20,000
13,0012000
10,00113,001
500110,000
Below 5000

23
115
524
173
77

2.5%
12.6%
57.5%
19.0%
8.4%

Shampoo
Athletic shoes
Mobile phones
Bottled water

232
224
228
228
912

25.4%
24.6%
25.0%
25.0%
100.%

Gender

Marital status

Agea

H5b. The negative relationship between cultural identity and actual

purchase of an import brand diminishes or reverses when an import
brand is perceived as having high versus low brand equity.
City

In the same vein, when a domestic brand is perceived of as high

equity, it will enhance the positive relationship between consumer
ethnocentrism and preference for a domestic brand. When an import
brand is perceived of as high equity, it will mitigate the negative inuence of consumer ethnocentrism on preference for the import brand,
thus leading to a higher preference for import brands. Thus, hypotheses
regarding how the interaction between brand equity and consumer
ethnocentrism affects preference for the domestic or import brands
are developed.
H6a. The positive relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and
preference for a domestic brand is stronger when a domestic brand is
perceived possessing high versus low brand equity.
H6b. The negative relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and
preference for an import brand diminishes or reverses when an import
brand is perceived possessing high versus brand equity.
Given that no direct relationship between consumer ethnocentrism
and actual purchase behavior is proposed, no interaction effect on actual
purchasing pattern is hypothesized.
3. Research methods

Income levela
(monthly income RMB)

Product categoryb

Total

Notes:
a. Age and income were analyzed as continues variables (in terms of the actual age and income reported) and then were classied into groups in Table 2. Gender and marital status
were coded as dummy variable. Region (city) data was pull together and not used in
analysis.
b. Each participant only responds to one of the four products representing both domestic
and import brands as listed in Table 3.

3.1. Data collection

Data were collected from ve major cities in China, covering regions
from coasts to inlands. Consumers in these cities represent an urban
population, which is germane to the purpose of this study due to their
higher level of brand knowledge of both domestic and import products.
Survey questionnaires were distributed and collected by well-trained
college undergraduate and MBA students. To ensure external validity,
trained interviewers administrated the questionnaire in various locations, from colleges, to households, to business rms so that the sample
represented consumers from different demographic backgrounds. The
samples were randomly selected from each site. A total of 1051 questionnaires were distributed and 912 valid ones were collected (effective
rate is 86.8%, after discarding incomplete questionnaires). The sample
prole is reported in Table 2.

Auchan, Carrefour, Wal-Mart, Suning, Gome, Taobao, and Pacic Online

(a gateway website for cell phones and other IT products). This search
resulted in a list of 43 brands of shampoo, 24 brands of athletic shoes,
41 brands of mobile phones and 30 brands of bottled water. Next,
40 brands (19 domestic and 21 import brands) were chosen based on
the ranking reported by a national market survey in 2010, in terms of
name recognition by Chinese consumers. Considering the potential
bias due to imbalanced numbers of domestic and import brands
among the four product categories, our data analysis was based on
equal numbers of domestic and import brands in terms of top rated
brand preference in each product category (see Table 3). The brands
nally selected are widely available in marketplace and familiar to
most consumers in terms of pilot focus group studies in each surveyed
location.

3.2. Product and brand selection

3.3. Questionnaires and measures

We selected four product categories (shampoo, athletic shoes, cell

phones, and bottled water) as stimulus products in this study because
they were the most commonly purchased and used products in the
daily life of our sample population. They represent both hedonic products with a relatively high self-expressive value (cell phone and athletic
shoes) and utilitarian products with a relatively high functional value
(shampoo and bottled water).
Both domestic and import brands of these products were selected
based on the following procedures. First, we recorded all brands of
these four products listed in several major retailers' websites, including

Four versions of the questionnaire (each version uses one product)

were developed so that each respondent was only surveyed about one
product, which include equal pairs of domestic brands and foreign
brands. The questionnaires included measures of cultural identity, consumer ethnocentrism, brand equity and ve demographic variables
(age, gender, marital status, region, income). Cultural identity and
consumer ethnocentrism were measured by 7-point Likert type items
borrowed from Keillor et al.'s (1996) national identity scale. Keillor
et al. (1996) identify four dimensions of national identity: cultural
homogeneity; belief structure; national heritage; and ethnocentrism.

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

1229

Table 3
Brands selected in the study.
Category

Domestic brand

Import brand

Shampoo
Athletic shoes
Mobile phones
Bottled water

BaWang ()a, LaFang ()a, Slek ()a

Xtep ()a, Peak ()a, Li-Ning ()a, 361 (361)a, Anta () a
Lenovo ()a, Gionee ()a, BBK ()a, OPPO (OPPO)a
Master Kong ()a, Nongfu Spring ()a, Wahaha ()a, Runtian (),
Robust (), Yun Nan Shan Quan (), Aquarius ()

Pantenea, Rejoicea, Head & Shouldersa, Lux, Hazeline, Clear, VS

Nikea, Adidasa, Kappaa, Conversea, Pumaa
Nokiaa, Samsunga, Apple iPhonea, Motorolaa, Sony Ericsson, HTC
Nestlea, Eviana, Watsonsa

a
These are brands that were nally used in data analysis. To avoid potential bias, we selected equal numbers of domestic and import brands on each product category based on
participants' rating of brand preference.

Given only a small proportion of Chinese having religious faith (1.8%

Christians, 0.40% Catholic and 13% Buddhists; Jin & Qiu, 2011), the belief
dimension (mostly deal with religious beliefs) does not apply to our
sample and is excluded from further analysis. Given that national heritage and cultural homogeneity components were loaded as one factor
in our sample, both reecting identication with one's culture and
therefore is renamed as cultural identity. Reliability and validity of the
scales appear in Table 4.
Brand equity is measured by brand awareness, perceived quality
(Aaker, 1991) and value for money (Lehmann, Keller, & Farley, 2008),
which are considered important sources of brand equity (Aaker, 1991;
Yoo & Donthu, 2001). Participants were asked to evaluate their awareness of, perceived quality and belief about value for money of the stimulus brands (equal number of domestic and import brands is included in
each case) on a 7-point scale (from 1 for lowest to 7 highest). All
items were translated into Chinese, following a standard back translation procedure and were tested with two focus groups to determine
the applicability of the items. Allowing for the likelihood that the participants may not know all of the brands, a default value of 0 for unable to
answer is included. The composite of brand equity is .85 for domestic
brands and .84 for import brands.
The predicted variables are relative brand preference and brand
purchase. Participants were asked to rate their preference for domestic
vs. import brands (on a 7-point scale) for each product category being
surveyed. The average scores of preference for domestic brands were
divided by that of import brands and then converted to a percentage.
If the value of domestic brands is higher than the value of import brands,
it indicates a relative preference for domestic brands; and vice versa.
Meanwhile they were asked to recall the number of domestic vs. import
brand for each product category they have purchased during the previous year. The number of domestic brands minus the number of import
brands is the result which indicates a relative preference for domestic
brands; and vice versa.

4. Results
The entire set of sample (n = 912) was randomly split into two
subsets. After deleting those poor t items based on results from an
exploratory factor analysis (N = 477), a conrmatory factor analysis
was performed for the national heritage, cultural homogeneity, and
consumer ethnocentrism scales (n = 435). CFA results reveal that in
the three factor model, the correlation coefcient between national
heritage and cultural homogeneity is 1.04, greater than unity, indicating that the model is not a proper estimate. A two factor CFA model
(combining national heritage and cultural homogeneity into the cultural identity factor) demonstrated a good t (the x indices appear in
Table 3). The composite is .83 for cultural identity and .80 for consumer ethnocentrism, indicating adequate reliabilities. The cultural identity
is moderately correlated with consumer ethnocentrism (r = .41, t =
8.22, p b .01). The average variance explained (AVE) for both variables
is larger than the variance between two variables, indicating good discriminant validity. We also performed Harman's single-factor test by
restricting all the indicators to load on a single factor, which showed a
poor overall model t (i.e., 2(44) = 1140.62, 2/df = 25.92, p b 0.01,
RMSEA = 0.17, GFI = 0.81, NNFI = 0.78, CFI = 0.82, PNFI = 0.65,
PGFI = 0.64) (2 = 730.85, p b 0.01). Hence, our ndings signal that
common method bias does not appear to be a problem in this study
(Olson, Slater, & Hult, 2005).
Least-squares regression analysis was conducted to test all hypotheses about relative preference and actual purchasing for domestic and
import brands separately. In the regression model, the highest VIF
value stands at 2.532, which is much lower than the cut-off value of 5
to 10, showing that multicollinearity is not a problem in our models
(Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The correlation index is reported
in Table 5.
Table 6 reports ndings based on signicant terms by running the
models using signicant terms only (Armstrong, 2012). Cultural identity

Table 4
Scale items and conrmative factor analysis results.
Items
Cultural identity

Consumer
ethnocentrism

Fit indices

Composite = 0.83, AVE = 0.68, M = 5.04, SD = 1.09

1. Chinese are proud of their nationality.
2. Important people from China's past are admired by people today.
3. People frequently engage in activities that identify as Chinese.
4. One of China's strengths is that it emphasizes events of historical importance.
5. A Chinese possesses certain cultural attributes that other people do not possess.
6. Chinese in general feel that they come from a common historical background.
7. China has a strong historical heritage.
Composite = 0.80, AVE = 0.51, M = 3.47, SD = 1.34
1. We should purchase products manufactured in China instead of letting other countries get rich off us.
2, Chinese should not buy foreign products, because it hurts Chinese business and causes unemployment.
3. Only those products that are unavailable in China should be imported.
4. It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support Chinese products.
2(43) = 553.41, 2/df = 12.87, RMSEA = 0.12, GFI = 0.90, NNFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.86, PNFI = 0.66, PGFI = 0.58

Standardized
loading

t Value

0.73
0.73
0.72
0.63
0.59
0.56
0.55

23.86
23.83
23.44
19.75
17.98
16.89
16.68

0.84
0.74
0.65
0.59

27.67
23.72
20.18
18.07

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

1
.15 (.15)
2.82 (2.82)
.85 (.85)

10

1
.74 (.74)
.05 (.05)
.29 (.29)
.45 (.45)
.50 (.50)
.01 (.01)
.07 (.07)
.51 (51)
.50 (.50)
.05 (.05)
.26 (.26)
3.47 (3.47)
1.34 (1.34)

1
.08 (.08)
.10 (.10)
1
.09 (.09)
.20 (.20)
.23 (.23)

1
.39 (.39)
.05 (.05)
.08 (.08)
.06 (.06)
.02 (.02)
.14 (.14)
5.04 (5.04)
1.09 (1.09)
Note: The data in parentheses are for the measures of foreign brands.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.01.

.01 (.01)
.01 (.01)
.08 (.08)
.11 (.11)
.12 (.12)
.26 (.26)
1.64 (1.64)

Brand purchase

Domestic
brand

Import
brand

Domestic
brand

Import
brand

ns
ns

.085
ns

ns
ns

ns
.089

Main effects
Cultural identity (CI)
.093
Consumer ethnocentrism (CE) ns
Brand equity (BE)
.668

.026
.072
.612

.071
NH
.518

.078
NH
.440

Interactions
CI BE
CE BE

.063
ns

.065
.115

ns
NH

.105
NH

Total model
R2
Adjusted R2
F-values

.487
.471
.280
.206
.485
.467
.278
.202

253.846
117.115
157.617
52.575

NH Non-hypothesized; ns no signicance.
p b 0.05.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.001.

1
.08 (.10)
.12 (.16)
.02 (.00)
.09 (.01)
.17 (.10)
.07 (.01)
.18 (.10)
93.22 (125.32)
34.24 (51.24)
1
.69 (.67)
.14 (.11)
.15 (.19)
.01 (.02)
.07 (.04)
.17 (.16)
.08 (.02)
.21 (.14)
89.89 (140.36)
45.47 (83.21)

Brand preference

Demographic variables
Age
Income

1
.02 (.02)
.38 (.38)
2.77 (2.77)
1.07 (1.07)

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

1
.50 (.40)
.52 (.43)
.12 (.12)
.08 (.08)

1. Brand purchase
2. Brand preference
3. Brand equity
4. Cultural identity
5. Consumer ethnocentrism
6. Gender
7. Marital status
8. Age
9. Income
10. Education
M
SD

Table 5
Correlation matrix.

Table 6
Regression Results of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism on stated preference
and actual purchase of domestic vs. import brands.

1
2.72 (2.72)
1.17 (1.17)

1230

associates positively with preference for domestic brands ( = .093, p b

.001) as well as with brand purchasing of domestic brands ( = .071, p b
.05). Meanwhile, cultural identity associates negatively with brand
purchasing of import brands ( = .078, p b .01). The effect of cultural
identity on preference for import brands is not statistically signicant.
Therefore, H1a, H3a and H3b are supported but H1b is not supported.
Consumer ethnocentrism associates negatively with preference for
import brands ( = .072, p b .05), but no signicant effect is found
in preference for domestic brands. As such, H2b is supported but H2a is
not supported.
Brand equity associates positively with relative preference and
purchasing for both domestic and import brands. While such results
are fully expected, they are important when interpreting the moderating role of brand equity. The result shows a signicant interaction
effect ( = .063, p b .05) between brand equity and cultural identity
on relative preference, but not on relative purchasing (p N .05) for
domestic brands. Therefore, H4a is supported but H4b is not supported. For import brands, positive interaction effects between cultural
identity and brand equity on brand preference ( = .065, p b .05)
and on brand purchase ( = .105, p b .01) indicate that the previously
negative bias toward import brands is reversed when brand equity is
taken into consideration so that consumer preference and purchase
for import brands are enhanced. Therefore, both H5a and H5b are
supported.
No signicant interaction effect (p N .05) is found between brand
equity and consumer ethnocentrism in preference for the domestic
brand. H6a is not supported. However, a strong negative interaction
effect ( = .115, p b .001) for import brand is opposite to H6b,
which predicts that the negative relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and preference for import brand will be diminished when an
import brand is perceived of as high brand equity.
The robustness of the results was examined by a cross-validation
procedure. The multiple regression model developed for one half of
the sample (sample 1, n = 457) was used to predict the measures
for another half of the sample (sample 2, n = 455) (Gigerenzer &
Brighton, 2009; Woodside, Frey, & Daly, 1989). The results are summarized in Table 7. The correlations are in the moderate-to-high range and
statistically signicant, providing additional support of the validity of
the four respective models.

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

Table 7
Cross-validation results.
Dependent variable

Model for sample 2,

data for sample 1

Model for sample 1,

data for sample 2

Preferencedomestic brand
Preferenceimport brand
Purchasedomestic brand
Purchaseimport brand

0.63,,
0.63
0.57
0.45

0.75
0.68
0.49
0.43

p b 0.05.
p b 0.01.
p b 0.001.

5. Discussions
Drawing from a large sample of consumers from ve cities in China,
this study reveals that cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism
have different inuences on consumer preference and purchasing of
domestic and import brands. Our empirical results show several interesting ndings that provide insights on existing literature. First, as we
anticipated, cultural identity was found to enhance the relative preference and actual purchasing of domestic brand (H1a and H3a) and
decrease the relative purchasing of import brands (H3b). Its insignicant negative relation with relative preference for import brands
may suggest that one's domestic bias due to cultural identity does
not directly translate to one's reluctance to buy import brands. Such
results also demonstrate that cultural identity is a good predictor for
brand choice between domestic and import brands when other factors
(e.g., brand equity) are controlled, showing brand purchasing is quite
consistent with one's brand preference.
Second, consumer ethnocentrism is found to have a negative inuence on preference for import brands, as expected (H2b), but no impact
on preference for domestic brands. Such results suggest that consumer
ethnocentrism leads to a high tendency toward rejecting foreign brands
in their stated preference, but they do not necessarily like domestic
brands. Moreover, since such stated preference may be out of morality
concern or normative response to foreign threats instead of coming
from one's true cognition and feelings of loving domestic brands, it
may not directly transfer to actual behavior.
Third, as brand equity is found to have a positive impact on brand
preference and actual purchasing for both domestic and import brands,
our results further demonstrate the moderating role of brand equity
in the above relationships. When a domestic brand is perceived of as
high equity, the effect of cultural identity on domestic brand preference
is enhanced (H4a). In contrast, when a foreign brand is perceived of
high equity, the negative impact of cultural identity on preference and
purchasing of foreign brands is negated and the tendency to buying
foreign brands is increased (H5a and H5b).
Finally, it is interesting to note that even when an import brand is
perceived of as high equity, ethnocentric consumers continue to have
a negative preference on import brands. This result is contradictory to
our hypothesis and ndings from previous studies. One explanation is
that consumer ethnocentrism is mainly derived from one's normative
response and moral obligation to protecting domestic economy. Such
a morality concern leads consumers to state a preference against foreign
products even though the quality of domestic products is perceived
of as lower than that of foreign products (Wall & Heslop, 1986), as
research has shown that ethnocentric consumers are less culturally
open (Shimp & Sharma, 1987), less internationalism (Ishii, 2009) and
more dogmatic (Anderson & Cunningham, 1972).

6. Theoretical contributions
This study has advanced theoretical development of county image
research that articulates the differences between country image and

1231

product image, and between cognitive and affective country image

concepts (Li, Wang, Jiang, Barnes, & Zhang, 2014; Wang et al., 2012).
The country image refers to a general perceived image of a country
and the product image refers to a product image made in the country.
Such a distinction helps to explain the fact that while products made
in China still bear low image in consumers' minds, the country image
of China has been increased signicantly in recent years due to aggressive national branding campaign events. A high country image
may enhance cultural identity of consumers in that country as well.
Consequently, a consumer purchasing a brand may be doing so for
its symbolic value of self-identication with his/her national culture.
Indeed, consumers may attempt to understand and express their
self-identity or cultural identity through the products/brands they
use, beyond consumer ethnocentric motivation.
This study contributes to the extant literature by delineating different mechanisms underlying cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism constructs and comparing their different impacts on Chinese
consumers' preference and purchasing of domestic vs. import brands.
We argue that cultural identity is based on one's cognition of selfidentity with the national culture and one's feelings of belongings to
the culture. However, consumer ethnocentrism is mainly out of normative response to one's nationalistic responsibility, morality and patriotism feeling to protect national economies, particularly when they are
facing the threat of import products.
Revealing such different underlying mechanisms is theoretically
important in understanding consumers' different responses to
domestic vs. foreign products. For instance, previous studies on
consumer ethnocentrism often use willingness-to-buy domestic
products as a dependent measure and then make predictions that
consumers would reject foreign product at the same time. Such an
assumption has been challenged (Suh & Kwon, 2003) but has not
been formally addressed or empirically examined in the extant literature. In this study, choice of domestic and import brands were both
measured as such direct comparisons of domestic vs. import brand
choice bias can be made. As demonstrated by our ndings about
the moderating role of brand equity, strong brand equity tends to
enhance consumer brand preference, whether or not it is a domestic
or import brand. However, such moderating effects are different regarding cultural identity vs. consumer ethnocentrism. For example,
the negative relationship between cultural identity and preference
for, and purchase of, import brands changes to positive when consumers perceive a high equity in import brands. This is because a
strong feeling of belonging to one's own national cultural does not
imply a rejection of foreign culture or foreign brands when brand
equity is taken into consideration (zsomer, 2012). Consumer preferences for local and global brands can coexist rather than being
mutually exclusive. However, brand equity does not change the negative relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and stated
preference for import brands. This is explained by the notion that
ethnocentrism is derived from a normative rejection of foreign
brands because buying foreign products means a threat to domestic
economies and is morally wrong.
This study sheds new light on the understanding of the relationship
between relative preference and actual purchasing of domestic or
import brands. This relationship becomes particular important in
less technologically advanced countries, like China, where consumers
often face the dilemmas of choosing between import brands of high
conspicuous and domestic brands of low image. Our results conrmed
our hypotheses that the relationship between relative preference
and actual purchasing of domestic or import brands is stronger when
cultural identity is involved than when consumer ethnocentrism is
concerned. This is explained by stating that the former is out of one's
internal disposition while the latter is more out of social or moral obligations. Our results suggest that cultural identity is a better predictor
than consumer ethnocentrism in terms of the relation between stated
preference and actual purchasing.

1232

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

7. Managerial implications
Competing in China and other emerging markets, marketing managers should understand the importance of the symbolic meanings
that are associated with the brand-of-origin by developing cultural
identity related brand campaigns to appeal consumers' feeling of belonging. As our results demonstrated, using cultural identity appeals
would be more effective in cultivating consumers' preference for domestic brands than simply arousing consumer ethnocentrism to reject
import brands. Chinese manufacturers may be advised to use cultural
identity as a marketing theme by adding Chinese elements to product
design in order to appeal to consumers' affective feelings toward
domestic brands. Such an emphasis on Chinese elements or cultural imprints is a way of differentiation from leading import brands by arousing
feelings of pride on the national culture to appeal to Chinese consumers
(Wang & Lin, 2009).
Multinational companies (MNCs), however, would take a different
approach, as their goal is to promote imported brands or global brands
and compete with domestic or local brands. Meanwhile, MNCs wishing
to be successful in winning sizable consumer market in countries where
feelings of cultural identity are strong may also consider adapting to
local cultural elements or using well-perceived national icons to appeal
to local consumers. Many MNCs in China have learned the lesson the
hard way. For instance, in 2004, China banned a Nike television commercial because the ad insults China's national dignity. The commercial, titled Chamber of Fear, showed James, the Cleveland Cavaliers'
reigning NBA rookie of the year, defeating the kung fu master, two
women in traditional Chinese attire, and a pair of dragons. Since all
these cartoon characters are considered sacred symbols in traditional
Chinese culture, the ad received an indignant response from Chinese
viewers. Four years later, in order to take the prime opportunity to
ride a wave of Chinese national pride when 2008 Olympics was held
in China, Nike adopted a signicant amount of Chinese elements,
including porcelain, Ping-Pong, calligraphy, fan, dragon, bamboo, even
Chinese cuisine and tea in product design and advertising. Nike's rival,
Adidas, adopted the same strategy by showing Peking Opera performers
who provide a backdrop for Adidas models clad in polo shirts, decorated
with ancient Chinese swirling lucky cloud patterns. It turns out that
both Nike and Adidas had good sales of their products with Chinese
themes (Canaves, 2008). On the other hand, the ndings regarding
the moderating role of brand equity should be noted as well. MNCs,
especially those from economically and technologically advanced countries, can capitalize their strong brand equity to counteract the negative
feelings and attitudes against foreign products. The negative bias
against foreign products or brands will be mitigated by perceived
brand equity and conspicuous symbolic meanings of an import brand
(Wang & Chen, 2004).

8. Limitations and future research directions

As most empirical studies, limitations occur in this research that
warrant further investigations in future research based on ndings of
this study. Import brands selected in this study were from different
countries. However, it is likely that these brands are perceived differently and have different inuences arousing consumer cultural identity and
consumer ethnocentrism due to potential effects of cultural similarity
or cultural distance on consumer judgment. This provides a new avenue
in future research to further examine how cultural distance of those
import brands inuence brand preference and brand purchase.
This study uses four product categories with a balance of two products with relatively high self-expressive value and two products with
relatively high utilitarian values. It will be interesting and meaningful
to further examine whether and how such product categories might
moderate the impact of cultural identity and consumer ethnocentrism
on preference and purchase of domestic versus import brands.

In the current study, consumer purchasing or ownership of domestic

versus import brand was measured by recalling what brand consumers
actually purchased during the previous year. It is possible that their
actual purchasing behavior may reinforce their preference for domestic
or import brands. Therefore, such results should be interpreted with
caution regarding the causality of the relationship between cultural
identity/ethnocentrism and brand preferences.
While we have carefully selected those brands that were highly
well-known and widely available to consumers based on market survey
results and our pilot studies (we also measured consumer awareness
of those brands), future research may control the brand availability,
consumer familiarity with stimulus brands and consumption habits in
research design.
Contradictory to H6b, the ndings indicate that the brand equity
in fact negatively moderates the impact of consumer ethnocentrism
on preference for import brands. As we explained above, it is likely
that moral obligation to protecting domestic economy leads consumers
to reject import brands even though they perceive high quality of
import brands. Therefore, the stronger the perceived import brand
equity is, the stronger the threat from foreign countries is felt, and consequently, the stronger the motive to reject import brands is aroused.
Such results and interpretations warrant further empirical examinations, especially when different moderating effects of cultural identity
and consumer ethnocentrism on consumer preference for import brands
are compared.
Acknowledgment
This article was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 71072152; No. 71372177).
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New
York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of
culture: A study of Japanese and Spanish brand personality constructs. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 492508.
Anderson, W. T., Jr., & Cunningham, W. H. (1972). The socially conscious consumer.
Journal of Marketing, 36(3), 2331.
Armstrong, J. S. (2012). Illusions in regression analysis. International Journal of Forecasting,
28(3), 689694.
Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R. D., & Melewar, T. C. (2001). The impact of
nationalism, patriotism and internationalism on consumer ethnocentric tendencies.
Journal of International Business Studies, 32(1), 157175.
Canaves, S. (2008). Sportswear with designs on China. Wall Street Journal Eastern
Edition, 251(66), B1B2.
Chandon, P., Morwitz, V. G., & Reinartz, W. J. (2005). Do intentions really predict behavior?
Self-generated validity effects in survey research. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 114.
Clark, T. (1990). International marketing and national character: A review and proposal
for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 6679.
Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, consumer
ethnocentrism, and materialism: An eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116146.
Cobb-Walgren, C. J., Ruble, C. A., & Donthu, N. (1995). Brand equity, brand preference, and
purchase intent. Journal of Advertising, 24(3), 2540.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307319.
Faber, B. (2012). The sufferings of Metersbonwe. http://cargocollective.com/bennettfaber/
The-Sufferings-of-Metersbonwe
Ger, G., Belk, R., & Lascu, D. (1993). The development of consumer desire in marketing and
developing economies: The cases of Romania and Turkey. Advances in Consumer
Research, 20(1), 102107.
Gigerenzer, G., & Brighton, H. (2009). Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better
inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 107143.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 2249.
Infosino, W. J. (1986). Forecasting new product sales from likelihood of purchase ratings.
Marketing Science, 5(4), 387388.
Ishii, K. (2009). Nationalistic sentiments of Chinese consumers: The effects and determinants of animosity and consumer ethnocentrism. Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 21(4), 299308.
Jameson, D. A. (2007). Reconceptualizing cultural identity and its role in intercultural
business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 44(3), 199235.

J. He, C.L. Wang / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 12251233

Jin, Z., & Qiu, Y. (2011). The blue book on religion: Report on China's religions. China: Social
Science Academic Press.
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know what they
will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187200.
Keillor, B. D., Hult, G. T. M., Erffmeyer, R. C., & Babakus, E. (1996). NATID: The development
and application of a national identity measure for use in international marketing.
Journal of International Marketing, 4(2), 5773.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 122.
Laroche, M., Papadopoulos, N., Heslop, L. A., & Mourali, M. (2005). The inuence of
country image structure on consumer evaluations of foreign products. International
Marketing Review, 22(1), 96115.
Lehmann, D. R., Keller, K. L., & Farley, J. U. (2008). The structure of survey-based brand
metrics. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 2956.
Li, D., Wang, C. L., Jiang, Y., Barnes, B. R., & Zhang, H. (2014). The asymmetric inuence
of cognitive and affective country image on rational and experiential purchases.
European Journal of Marketing, 48(11/12).
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224253.
Olson, E. M., Slater, S. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (2005). The performance implications of t
among business strategy, marketing organization structure, and strategic behavior.
Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 4965.
Oyserman, D. (2007). Social identity and self-regulation. In A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (second edition). New
York: Guilford Press.
zsomer, A. (2012). The interplay between global and local brands: A closer look at
perceived brand globalness and local iconness. Journal of International Marketing,
20(2), 7295.
Pecotich, A., & Rosenthal, M. (2001). Country of origin, quality, brand and consumer ethnocentrism. Journal of Global Marketing, 15(2), 3160.
Pratt, N. (2005). Identity, culture and democratization: The case of Egypt. New Political
Science, 27(1), 6986.
Rawwas, M. Y. A., Rajendran, K. N., & Wuehrer, G. A. (1998). The inuence of worldmindedness and nationalism on consumer evaluation of domestic and foreign products.
International Marketing Review, 13(2), 2038.
Samiee, S. (2010). Advancing the country image construct A commentary essay. Journal
of Business Research, 63(4), 442445.
Schlosser, A. E. (2003). Experiencing products in the virtual world: The role of goal and
imagery in inuencing attitudes versus purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 184198.
Sharma, S., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecendents
and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 23(1), 2637.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A
meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modications and future
research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325343.

1233

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation
of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280289.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. London: Penguin Books.
Suh, T., & Kwon, I. W. G. (2003). Globalization and reluctant buyers. International
Marketing Review, 19(6), 663680.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners,
customs, mores, and morals. Boston: Ginn and Co.
Sussman, N. M. (2000). The dynamic nature of cultural identity throughout cultural
transitions: Why home is not so sweet. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
4(4), 355373.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G.
Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Home country bias in product evaluation: The complementary
roles of economic and socio-psychological motives. Journal of International Business
Studies, 38(3), 361373.
Vida, I., Dmitrovic, T., & Obadia, C. (2008). The role of ethnic afliation in consumer
ethnocentrism. European Journal of Marketing, 42(), 327343.
Wall, M., & Heslop, L. A. (1986). Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus
imported products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14(2), 2736.
Wang, C. L., Bristol, T., Mowen, J., & Chakraborty, G. (2000). Alternative modes of
self-construal: Dimensions of connectednessseparateness and advertising
appeals to the cultural and gender-specic self. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
9(2), 107115.
Wang, C. L., & Chen, Z. X. (2004). Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy domestic products in a developing country setting: Testing moderating effects. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 21(6), 391400.
Wang, C. L., Li, D., Barns, B., & Anh, J. (2012). Country image, product image and consumer
purchase intention: Evidence from an emerging economy. International Business
Review, 21(6), 10411051.
Wang, C. L., & Lin, X. (2009). Migration of Chinese consumption values: Traditions, modernization, and cultural renaissance. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(3), 399409.
Wang, C. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1997). The separatenessconnectedness self-schema: Scale
development & application to message construction. Psychology & Marketing, 14(2),
185207.
Wang, C. L., Siu, N., & Hui, A. (2004). Consumer decision-making styles on domestic and
imported brand clothing. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 239252.
Woodside, A. G., Frey, L. L., & Daly, R. T. (1989). Linking service quality, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention. Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9(4), 517.
Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing implications. European Journal of Marketing, 22(5), 4457.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumerbased brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 114.
Zhou, L., & Hui, M. K. (2003). Symbolic value of foreign products in the People's Republic
of China. Journal of International Marketing, 11(2), 3658.