Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer

Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning: A Personality and Collective Identity Perspective Stanford A. Westjohn, Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson ABSTRACT Marketers have increasingly employed positioning strategies to appeal to either global or local consumer cultures. However, little is known about the characteristics of consumers most likely to respond to such positioning. The authors find that the collective identities of global and national identification are strongly related to responsiveness to global and local consumer culture positioning (GCCP and LCCP, respectively). The results also show that personality predisposes people to adopt collective identities. The personality traits of openness to experience and agreeableness are significantly related to global and national identity, respectively. On the basis of these findings, the authors present implications with regard to developing GCCP and LCCP strategies that are congruent with consumers’ personality and associated collective identity. Keywords: global and local consumer culture positioning, global identity, national identity, attitude toward the ad, five-factor theory of personality, self-verification theory

n increasingly interconnected global marketplace—spurred by dramatic growth in worldwide investment and trade, the emergence of global media and the Internet, and the expansion of world travel in recent decades (Steenkamp and De Jong 2010)—presents a fundamental challenge to companies around the world (Iversen and Hem 2011; Nijssen and Douglas 2011). A more global marketplace has led firms in search of global consumer segments—that is, consumer groups spanning national borders who attach similar meanings to people, places, and things (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). In response to the emergence of a global consumer culture, Alden, Steenkamp,

A

Stanford A. Westjohn is Assistant Professor of Marketing & International Business, Department of Marketing & International Business, University of Toledo (e-mail: [email protected]). Nitish Singh is Associate Professor of International Business, Department of International Business, Saint Louis University (e-mail: [email protected]). Peter Magnusson is Assistant Professor of International Marketing, Department of Marketing, Northern Illinois University (e-mail: [email protected]).

and Batra (1999) introduce and validate the concept of global consumer culture positioning (GCCP) as a marketing strategy to reach global consumer segments, contrasting it with local consumer culture positioning (LCCP). They find that more than 85% of advertisements could be classified as exhibiting one of these dominant cultural positioning strategies. However, to successfully employ a GCCP or LCCP strategy, marketers must know which strategy, if any, is appropriate for their target market. Thus, an important question left unanswered is to determine the characteristics of consumers who find GCCP versus LCCP appealing. Although Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra establish a third positioning strategy, foreign consumer culture positioning (FCCP), it was identified in only .5% of U.S. advertisements and less than 4% across seven countries. Thus, we limit the scope of this study to GCCP versus LCCP. Journal of International Marketing, Ahead of Print ©2011, American Marketing Association DOI: 10.1509/jim.10.0154

Global and Local Consumer Culture Positioning 1

Given the prevalence of GCCP versus LCCP in advertising and the central role of positioning in marketing strategy, this lack of guidance in the marketing literature appears problematic. Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) suggest that a reason consumer preferences for global versus local has received limited attention in prior research may be that it is assumed to be context dependent on the product–market–company mix. However, in this study, we posit that consumers vary systematically and predictably in their attitudes toward GCCP versus LCCP. At the center of our theoretical framework, we posit that consumers’ global and national identification explain consumers’ preference for GCCP versus LCCP. Theoretically, this is grounded in self-verification theory (Swann 1983), which suggests that consumers seek to confirm their identities through their beliefs, attitudes, and actions. In other words, we suggest that consumers will demonstrate more favorable attitudes toward advertising positioned in such a manner that reflects their respective global or national orientation.

ality predisposes people to adopt such identities (global vs. national). By linking collective identities directly and personality traits indirectly to responsiveness to GCCP and LCCP strategies, the current study helps marketers create more sophisticated psychographic profiles of consumer segments and better understand when to employ GCCP or LCCP strategies. Next, we provide a discussion of global and national identity, personality, and their theory-based relevance to GCCP and LCCP. The theory and hypotheses development section is followed by an empirical investigation of two independent samples on which we test how personality traits influence collective identities (global and national) and how these collective identities influence attitudes toward ads that are rich in global (GCCP) or national (LCCP) imagery. The study concludes with a discussion of the results of our empirical investigation, implications for managers, and directions for further research.

Furthermore, to offer a more complete understanding of consumers’ responsiveness to GCCP versus LCCP, we probe deeper into the motivational hierarchy and examine traits that may predispose people to adopting a global or national identity. Specifically, research indicates that personality traits may predispose people to adopting global and national identities. Personality traits shape people’s worldviews and ideological attitudes (Sibley and Duckitt 2009) because personality tends to influence the nature, outcome, and interpretations of social interactions. This view is supported by the overarching five-factor theory of personality (McCrae and Costa 1996), which suggests that personality traits influence individual and social group behavior and therefore have implications on the self.

THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

In summary, conceiving of the world as a single place compels people to construct identities or views of themselves in relation to the world (i.e., global or national orientation; Robertson 1992), which has implications for marketers and the strategies they employ. Furthermore, the development of such identities is proposed to be influenced by personality traits. Therefore, this study aims to make two primary contributions to the marketing literature. First, we develop a better understanding of the consumer who responds to GCCP and LCCP strategies specifically by investigating the role of collective identity (i.e., global and national identification). Second, we offer an understanding, based on McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory, of how person-

Brewer and Gardner (1996) suggest three levels of identity: individual, relational, and collective. Relational and collective self-identities most closely relate to social identities such as global and national identity. The relational level of self is based on personalized relationships with specific others and related personal networks. Collective selves do not require interpersonal relationships and instead are depersonalized associations based on membership in a symbolic group (Brewer and Yuki 2007).

2 Journal of International Marketing

We propose a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) that is grounded in two theoretical perspectives to account for the relationships among personality characteristics, collective identity, and attitude toward GCCP and LCCP strategies. First, we rely on self-verification theory (Swann 1983) to explain the relationship between identity and attitude toward GCCP versus LCCP, followed by a discussion of McCrae and Costa’s (1996) fivefactor theory of personality to account for the relationship between personality traits and identity.

Global and National Identity

In this study, we view identification with a global or national community as part of a person’s collective identity. It represents an orientation that emphasizes a sense

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Personality Traits

Response to Global or Local Consumer Culture Positioning

Collective Identity

(Agreeableness / Openness to Experience)

(Global / National)

Five-Factor Theory of Personalitya

Self-Verification Theoryb

aMcCrae bSwann

and Costa (1996). (1983).

of belongingness, empathy, and sharing with a particular community (Sampson and Smith 1957). Identification with the global community suggests that the person identifies with humankind as a whole, while national identification suggests that the person has a psychological investment in the national community. These two identities focus on different communities but are not necessarily opposites. Indeed, it may be possible, though uncommon, that a person identifies with both the national and global communities, similar to Cannon and Yaprak’s (2002) conception of local cosmopolitans and global parochials or Robertson’s (1992) description of an interpenetration of global and national identities. Both identities are characterized as depersonalized collective selves because they are based on self-categorization or membership in symbolic groups (global/national) rather than interpersonal relationships (Sedikides and Brewer 2001). Identity is relevant to positioning strategy because people tend to develop attitudes and behaviors that reinforce their identity; for example, Zhang and Khare (2009) find that global and local identities influence evaluation of global and local brands. This identity-reinforcing process is known as self-verification. Self-verification theory (Swann 1983) evolved from other theories stressing the need to maintain self-consistency (e.g., Festinger 1957). According to Swann (1983), people seek to ensure the stability of, and even take action to defend, their identities. Self-verification is based on an almost innate preference for consistency and stability and suggests that people tend to construct and maintain their self-views. People create environments, acquire signs and symbols, develop attitudes to self-verify, and join groups to validate their collective identity (Swann et al. 2004). In summary, people strive for coherence and stability of the self and engage in behavior that verifies those self-views.

Identity and Responsiveness to GCCP/LCCP Advertising Identifying a creative strategy that is compatible with and appealing to the target market is important to the success of an advertising campaign. A core question in the international marketing literature is how to design and implement effective advertising strategies to different consumer segments around the world (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006). In this vein, Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) find evidence of distinct advertising positioning strategies that may hold differing appeal depending on consumers’ identification with the global or national orientation. A GCCP strategy is defined as a strategy that “identifies the brand as a symbol of a given global culture” (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999, p. 77). International advertising plays an important role in communicating these signs and symbols associated with a given culture (Akaka and Alden 2010). To do so, advertisements should associate the brand with signs such as language, aesthetics, and themes that reflect an emerging global culture. In effect, advertising aims to create the association that “consumers all over the world consume a particular brand” or that the brand is a “conduit to feeling at one with the global culture” (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999, p. 77). The GCCP strategy is contrasted with LCCP, which is defined as a strategy that “associates the brand with local cultural meanings, reflects the local culture’s norms and identities, is portrayed as consumed by local people in the national culture, and/or is depicted as locally produced for local people” (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999, p. 77). Examples of LCCP include Budweiser’s and Chevrolet’s advertising in the United States, both of which depict strong all-American values and being a part of American history.


The GCCP versus LCCP strategies should not be confused with standardized versus adapted marketing strategies (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999). Whereas GCCP is more feasible to use across different markets than LCCP, it is not the equivalent. For example, some brands position themselves as LCCP in one market and GCCP in another market—again, consider Budweiser and Chevrolet, both of which use strong local appeals in their domestic market but a more global approach in other markets. Thus, GCCP may be used as a standardized marketing strategy, but it must not necessarily be so. Differences in personality or identity influence consumer perceptions of advertising and consequently call for compatible approaches to advertising strategy (De Mooij and Hofstede 2010). This study examines social identity, which in part defines a person’s self-concept that serves to specify attitudes, emotions, and behaviors (Hogg 2003). It does so through the process of self-verification, whereby a person strives to reinforce his or her self-identity through attitudes and behaviors (Swann 1983). Therefore, self-verification theory suggests that attitude toward an ad will be positive when the advertisement is imbued with imagery that is representative of a person’s identity. In the context of the current study, people with a global identity would have a positive attitude toward ads that project global imagery (i.e., GCCP), while people with a national identity would have a positive attitude toward ads that project national imagery (i.e., LCCP). In each case, positioning of the advertisement (global or local) reinforces the identity of the individual. Prior empirical findings also support our theoretical predictions. For example, global-oriented consumers are more likely to hold positive attitudes toward global brands (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Steenkamp and De Jong 2010; Zhang and Khare 2009), engage in purchase behavior that is considered socially and environmentally responsible (Nijssen and Douglas 2008), and have an orientation toward technology readiness and usage (Westjohn et al. 2009). In contrast, nationaloriented consumers are more likely to hold consumerethnocentric beliefs (Keillor et al. 1996) and evaluate products on the basis of the cultural congruity between the product and themselves (Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Steenkamp and De Jong 2010). Orth, Malkewitz, and Bee (2010) also find that people hold more favorable attitudes toward brands whose portrayal in advertisements is congruent with their selfconcept. Thus, on the basis of self-verification theory


and in line with related empirical evidence, we advance the following hypotheses: H1: The positive influence of global identification on attitude toward GCCP is greater than that of national identity on attitude toward GCCP. H2: The positive influence of national identification on attitude toward LCCP is greater than that of global identity on attitude toward LCCP.

Personality In-depth exploration of various consumer behaviors is not possible without inclusion of consumer personality (Sujan 2001), and researchers suggest that personality accounts for more variance in behavior than has been identified (Mowen 2000). Research incorporating personality variables in the consumer context can help us develop integrated conceptual frameworks for understanding consumers as dispositional, goal-striving, and narrative entities and allow for development of better targeted communications (Baumgartner 2002). One of the most widely accepted conceptions of personality is based on five broad domains of personality, which have been shown to define human personality at the highest level of organization (Goldberg 1993). The five traits are as follows: (1) agreeableness, (2) openness to experience, (3) extraversion, (4) conscientiousness, and (5) neuroticism. In the marketing domain, recent research has related the “Big Five” personality traits to, for example, consumer preference for different brand personality types (Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson 2009), empathetic responses to advertising (Mooradian, Matzler, and Szykman 2008), and consumer brand loyalty (Lin 2010). Drawing on the five elemental personality traits, McCrae and Costa (1996) develop a five-factor theory of personality to provide a complete model of personality that accounts for influences outside the five basic traits. A key element is referred to as “characteristic adaptations,” which are acquired skills, habits, and attitudes. Relevant to the current research is that characteristic adaptations include self-concept or the identity that provides a “sense of purpose and coherence to life” (McCrae and Costa 1996, p. 70). It is this component of the five-factor theory of personality that directly corresponds to global and national identities. McCrae and Costa (1996) suggest that information is selectively represented in the self-concept in ways consistent with per-

sonality traits. Thus, within the framework of the fivefactor theory of personality, personality traits influence the formation of identities.

Personality and Global/National Identity Studies have recognized that it is important that personality and culture be analyzed together because they mutually constitute each other and cannot be reduced to one or the other (Kitayama et al. 1997). Indeed, research has shown that the five-factor model reflects both individual differences in personality and components of collective identity (Hofstede and McCrae 2004). While the five-factor theory of personality provides the theoretical framework and justification for linking personality traits to collective identity, there has been no examination of the relationship between specific traits and identities. Consistent with prior research on the five-factor model (e.g., Mooradian, Matzler, and Szykman 2008), we focus primarily on the dimensions with strong theoretical links to the identity and advertising positioning strategies in focus. Thus, we consider two of the five personality traits that have the strongest theoretical justification: openness to experience and agreeableness. Thus, we not only test the claim of McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality that traits are related to identity but also posit specific relationships between openness/agreeableness and global/national identities. For completeness, we also include the remaining three personality traits, but we do not offer specific hypotheses for these dimensions. Next, we discuss each trait and its relationship to global and national identity. Agreeableness. The agreeableness trait is described by adjectives such as “appreciative,” “forgiving,” “generous,” “kind,” “sympathetic,” and “trusting” (McCrae and John 1992). It has been associated with affiliative strivings and so-called getting-along goals, in addition to being identified as an important factor in forming reciprocal alliances and the pursuit of relationship goals (Roberts and Robins 2000). Agreeableness also entails a strong interpersonal orientation relating willingness to interact within groups with seeking group harmony (Lun and Bond 2006). In other words, agreeableness is strongly associated with interpersonal relationships and maintaining within-group harmony (Lun and Bond 2006). According to these arguments, agreeableness should be more related to a collective identity that provides a structure for generating interpersonal harmony.

National identity provides such a structure because it offers symbolic association with a group of people who are easily accessible within national confines (Smith 1991). Consequently, people who are high in agreeableness are expected to seek group harmony with their ingroup, national-level collective identity rather than with the global-level collective identity, which subsumes a larger and less accessible group of people outside the national confines. In other words, agreeableness tends to predispose people to be nonconfrontational and accommodating to those with whom they come in immediate contact. Thus, maintaining a positive and amenable relationship will more likely be related to developing a national identity because the vast majority of everyday contact people experience is with others from their own local community. A relationship with global identity is not as clear. Lun and Bond (2006) argue that a person high on agreeableness is also low in openness to out-groups because this serves to assign a higher level of relationship harmony to the members of the immediate in-group. This tendency to be less open to out-groups implies a negative relationship with global identification. However, it can also be argued that agreeableness facilitates diplomacy and cross-cultural understanding. Therefore, we do not find any theoretical justification suggesting that agreeableness should be related either positively or negatively to global identification. Thus, we advance the following hypothesis: H3: Agreeableness has a positive relationship with national identification but no relationship with global identification. Openness to Experience. The openness-to-experience trait is described by adjectives such as “curious,” “imaginative,” “insightful,” “broad interests,” “nontraditional,” and “a preference for variety” (McCrae and John 1992). Openness to experience is associated with creative and divergent thinking (McCrae 1987), pursuit of aesthetic goals and creative activities (Roberts and Robins 2000), and the exploration of alternative identities (Tesch and Cameron 1987). Openness to experience is particularly important to the acceptance of and interest in cultures and events outside a person’s own national boundaries (Arrow and Sundberg 2004). For example, a global-oriented mind-set is characterized by traits such as openness to divergent cultural experiences, a willingness or curiosity to learn about how the world works, the ability to adapt and recognize complex interconnections, and the ability to understand the world with all its


complexity, diversity, and ambiguity (Levy et al. 2007). Furthermore, according to Hannerz (1990), worldmindedness is intrinsically linked to a person’s openness to other cultures and experiences. Given that people are acculturated into their national culture from birth, identifying with a community or culture outside the local culture necessitates some degree of openness to experience. Thus, with the wide variety and diversity of cultures in the world, maintaining openness to divergent experiences should be positively related to establishing a global identity. The relationship between openness to experience and national identification is uncertain. Social identity theory suggests that group identification is, in part, defined by the distinctiveness of a person’s in-group and awareness of out-groups (Ashforth and Mael 1989); other factors include prestige of the in-group, salience of the out-group, and other group formation factors. A person’s in-group based on his or her own nationality should be to some extent distinct from out-groups defined by other nationalities, which may suggest a lack of identification with the out-groups. However, distinctiveness and awareness do not necessarily imply a lack of openness to experience or interest in other cultures or diverse experiences.

lows Bitner, Booms, and Tetreault’s (1990) suggested data collection technique. To maximize the representativeness and generalizability of the samples, we instructed students to identify nonstudent participants, including family, friends, and coworkers over 26 years of age. Although the samples were not randomly collected, the demographic characteristics exhibited broad representation in the categories of income and education levels with equal gender representation and a mean age of almost 40 years across both samples (see Table 1). Following the elimination of incomplete cases and responses from non-U.S. citizens, the final samples consisted of 335 and 205 usable responses. A minor difference between the two samples is that the first sample included additional items that served as filler items for a separate research project. Thus, we administered the survey to the first sample online in two stages to avoid respondent fatigue due to survey length and to minimize the threat of common method variance (CMV) by separating the items measuring the independ-

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics Variable

In summary, prior research suggests a relationship between openness to experience and global identification; however, there is a lack of theoretical justification for a relationship between openness to experience and national identification. Therefore, we advance the following hypothesis: H4: Openness to experience has a positive relationship with global identification but no relationship with national identification.

Sample 1

Sample 2

335

205

Female

54.3%

54.6%

Male

45.7%

45.4%

35.9 years

39.5 years

18–24 years

29.6%

17.1%

25–44 years

36.4%

43.4%

Over 44 years

34.0%

39.5%

Less than $30,000

20.0%

11.7%

$30,000–$59,999

21.8%

25.9%

Sample Size Gender

Age Mean

Income (Annual Household)

METHOD Sample To examine the proposed framework, we gathered two independent samples to increase the robustness of our findings. On the basis of insights gleaned from the first sample, we made minor modifications to the measurements in the second sample, which we discuss in greater detail in the next section. The data-gathering methods were largely similar for both samples. We identified potential respondents and contacted them with the assistance of upper-level undergraduate business students at three midwestern U.S. universities, which fol-


$60,000–$89,999

24.8%

23.9%

$90,000–$120,000

19.4%

20.5%

More than $120,000

14.0%

18.0%

Education High school

12.5%

11.7%

Some college

45.4%

34.6%

Bachelor’s degree

29.9%

31.2%

Graduate degree

12.2%

22.4%

ent variables from the criterion measures (Podsakoff et al. 2003). Three to five days after completing the first part of the survey, which included the measures of personality traits, respondents received an e-mail directing them to the second part of the survey, which included measures for global and national identity and advertisements for evaluation. Responses from the second sample were collected after the first sample and included only the items of interest for this study, and thus it was shorter. Consequently, for the second sample, all data were collected in a single survey rather than being split into two collection periods as it was for the first sample. To minimize the threat of CMV, we presented the variable measurement items in reverse causal order (Podsakoff et al. 2003). We collected first assessments of attitude toward GCCP and LCCP ads, followed by global and national identity, personality traits, and finally demographics.

Measures, Validity, and Reliability We used previously validated scales to measure the personality traits (Mowen 2000) and global and national identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997). Mowen (2000) developed a shorter version of the extended fivefactor scale that has proved to be valid and reliable and avoids respondent fatigue; thus, we deemed it appropriate for this study. Der-Karabetian and Ruiz’s (1997) national and global identity scale were validated in a study of American immigrants, and the scales are also highly similar to subsequent operationalizations (see, e.g., Zhang and Khare 2009). We need to develop new items to measure GCCP and LCCP. For the first sample, we gathered a series of advertisements that reflected GCCP and LCCP strategies. We then subjected the advertisements to both a face validity test and a survey pretest to assess whether they indeed represented either a global or local orientation. First, a panel of four international marketing professors examined a group of advertisements, four of which we included in the current study. The professors classified the advertisements as globally oriented, locally oriented, or neither. The result of the panel provided support for the contention that the advertisements were either globally or locally oriented. Then, we pretested the advertisements on four groups of students from two midwestern U.S. universities. We randomly presented these advertisements (along with several others) to the students and asked them to evaluate the degree that each advertisement projected a global and a local feeling. On a seven-point Likert scale, the means for the perception

of local orientation for the two LCCP advertisements were 4.28 and 4.86. The perceived global orientation of the GCCP advertisements was 4.68 and 4.35. On the basis of the combined analysis from the expert panel and student pretest, we judged the advertisements to be suitably representative of their intended domains of LCCP and GCCP. We used a well-established single item, “I think this ad is bad/good” (Bergkvist and Rossiter 2007), to measure the respondent’s attitude toward each ad, which we subsequently used to create two two-item latent constructs measuring attitude toward GCCP and attitude toward LCCP. Despite pretests, the empirical analysis revealed some problems with composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) with the GCCP and LCCP measures in the first sample. Thus, in addition to the opportunity to verify the overall framework, in the second sample, drawing on the insights gleaned from the first sample, we developed a second set of advertisements to capture attitude toward GCCP and LCCP. We developed fictitious GCCP and LCCP advertisements for three global U.S. brands (Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, and Nike). For each brand, we created one GCCP advertisement and one LCCP advertisement for a total of six advertisements. To minimize confounding effects, each pair was similar in terms of color and size. We also asked survey respondents to evaluate the degree of global or local positioning of the GCCP and LCCP advertisements, respectively. Mean scores evaluating the globalness of the GCCP advertisements and localness of the LCCP advertisements on a seven-point scale suggested that the new set of advertisements were more extreme indicators of their respective cultural orientation than those in the first sample. The perceived global orientation of the GCCP advertisements was 5.87, 5.63, and 5.55, whereas the global advertisements’ perceived localness was 2.87, 2.57, and 2.80. In contrast, the perceived local orientation of the LCCP advertisements was 5.47, 5.92, and 6.02, and their perceived global orientation was 2.44, 2.29, and 2.11. This suggests that the respondents clearly viewed the GCCP advertisements as global advertisements and the LCCP advertisements as local advertisements. Furthermore, CR and AVE estimates approached accepted standards for GCCP advertisements (CR = .69, AVE = .42) and LCCP advertisements (CR = .68, AVE = .42). The resultant latent constructs for attitude toward GCCP and LCCP advertisements were highly correlated (r = .72). However, a follow-up chi-square difference test supports discriminant validity: 2(1) = 22.79, p < .001 (Anderson and


Gerbing 1988). Finally, to control for attitude toward the common brand for the matched pairs (e.g., Nike GCCP and Nike LCCP), it is recommended that the measurement error terms be allowed to correlate (Cole, Ciesla, and Steiger 2007). Table 2 reports the psychometric properties of the scales we used, and Table 3 reports the correlations between model constructs. The independent variables we measured include the two focal personality traits and identity variables. We also included several demographic variables to act as control variables and to offer some insight into the more observable characteristics of individuals demonstrating strong global or national identification. We assessed the validity and reliability of the latent constructs through a series of psychometric procedures. First, we assessed a series of measurement models in LISREL 8.80 (Jöreskog et al. 2000). All items significantly loaded on their respective constructs, indicating unidimensionality and convergent validity; the only exception was one low-loading national identity item, which we subsequently omitted. Furthermore, CR and AVE estimates exceeded recommended thresholds (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981), providing evidence of reliability. After confirming the validity and reliability of the individual latent constructs, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis, which produced respectable fit in both samples (Sample 1: 2(578) = 1311.73, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, nonnormed fit index [NNFI] = .91, incremental fit index [IFI] = .93, comparative fit index [CFI] = .93, and standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .05; Sample 2: 2(625) = 1115.46, RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .94, CFI = .94, and SRMR = .06). Discriminant validity was evident in that there were few substantial modification indexes, the confidence interval for the phi correlations between pairs of variables did not contain 1.0 (e.g., Anderson and Gerbing 1988), and the squared phi correlations were less than the respective variance extracted estimates for all pairs of constructs (e.g., Fornell and Larcker 1981), excluding the noted exceptions for the GCCP and LCCP advertisements we discussed previously. Finally, we tried to minimize any threat of CMV in the research design. In the first sample, we split the survey into two parts, and in the second sample, we placed the items in reverse causal order. Furthermore, Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest controlling for CMV by incorporating a theoretically unrelated marker variable to parcel out the


effects of CMV. If the structural parameters between the independent and dependent variables remain stable both with and without the inclusion of a marker variable, there is evidence that CMV does not pose a threat (Podsakoff et al. 2003). We included a well-established measure of “satisfaction with life” in the study as a marker variable because it is theoretically unrelated to the constructs of interest. Including this measure did not alter any of the relationships of interest in either sample. Thus, the test suggests that bias due to CMV does not pose a serious threat to the findings of this study.

RESULTS We estimated structural equations in LISREL 8.80 to assess the effect of the two focal personality traits1 on identity and identity’s subsequent effect on attitudes toward GCCP and LCCP. The structural model produced acceptable fit in both samples. Although significant chi-squares (Sample 1/Sample 2: 2(590) = 1346.36, p < .01/2(637) = 1182.18, p < .01) are often the norm with large, complex models, RMSEA (.06/.06), SRMR (.05/.06), NNFI (.91/.92), IFI (.93/.93), and CFI (.93/.93) indicate that the models fit the data respectably. We summarize the results in Figure 2 and Table 4; they offer strong support for the proposed hypotheses relating openness to experience to global identification and agreeableness to national identification, which in turn affects attitudes toward GCCP and LCCP. Specifically, in support of H1, the relationship between global identification and attitude toward GCCP was strong and significant ( = .40, p < .001/ = .58, p < .001), while the relationship between national identity and GCCP was not significant ( = .10, p > .05/ = .15, p > .05). Similarly, national identification was more strongly related to LCCP ( = .54, p < .001/ = .43, p < .001) than global identification and LCCP ( = –.08, p > .05/ = .30, p < .01). Although global identification was significantly related to both GCCP and LCCP in the second sample, a subsequent Wald test of parameter constraints offers evidence that the effect of national identification on attitude toward LCCP is significantly greater than that of global identification (2(1) = 3.9, p < .05). Thus, H2 is fully supported across both samples. The model also supports the hypothesized relationships on the influence of the personality traits openness to experience and agreeableness on formation of specific identities. In support of H3, openness to experience is

Table 2. Measurement Scales with Source, Item Loadings, CR, and AVE

Agreeableness (Mowen 2000)

CR/AVE

1. Kind to others

Loadings

Sample 1

Sample 2

.90/.76

.88/.71

.83

.71

2. Tender hearted with others

.94

.92

3. Sympathetic

.84

.88

Openness to Experience (Mowen 2000)

CR/AVE

.80/.57

.89/.72

1. Frequently feel highly creative

Loadings

.78

.91

2. Find novel solutions

.63

.74

3. Imaginative

.84

.89

Global Identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997)

CR/AVE

.82/.48

.85/.52

1. I feel like I’m living in a global village.

Loadings

.68

.76

.73

.75

2. I feel what I do could touch someone all around the world. 3. I feel like I am ‘next door neighbors’ with people living in other parts of the world.

.76

.82

4. I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.

.67

.68

5. I feel that people around the world are more similar than dissimilar.

.60

.59

National Identification (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997)

CR/AVE

.92/.61

.89/.54

1. Being an American plays an important part in my life.

Loadings

.72

.65

2. Nowadays, I consider being an American a special privilege.

.73

.61

3. My destiny is closely connected to the destiny of the United States.

.89

.89

4. I see my future closely tied to the future of humankind in the United States.

.87

.88

5. My fate and future are bound with that of the American people.

.88

.84

6. One of my most important duties as an American is loyalty to the United States.

.74

.68

7. If a stranger were to meet me and mistake me for a non-American, I would correct their mistake, and tell them that I am an American.

.57

.49

8. If I were to be born all over again, I would wish to be born an American.

—

—

Sample 1 CFA fit: 2(578) = 1198.44, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI = .93 Sample 2 CFA fit: 2(625) = 1115.46, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .94. and CFI = .94 Notes: For the five personality traits, respondents indicated how accurate each word/phrase described them.

significantly related with global identification ( = .27, p < .01/ = .47, p < .001), but it is not related with national identification ( = .09, p > .05/ = .01, p > .05). Furthermore, national identification was significantly predicted by agreeableness ( = .19, p < .01/ = .35, p < .01), but agreeableness was not related to global identification ( = .07, p > .05/ = –.01, p > .05), in support of H4. Furthermore, the findings with regard to the demographic variables produce mixed results. We modeled the demographic variables as control variables with paths to both

the identity variables and attitude toward GCCP and LCCP; we identified some significant relationships. Age was negatively related to global identification ( = –.17, p < .05) and positively related to national identification ( = .22, p < .001) in the first sample. For attitude toward the ad, age was negatively related to both GCCP ( = –.32, p < .001) and LCCP ( = –.23, p < .05) in the first sample and negatively related to only GCCP ( = –.28, p < .001) in the second sample. Gender was related to GCCP in both samples ( = .40, p < .001/ = .31, p < .001) as well as to LCCP in both samples ( = .31, p < .05/ = .35, p < .001). The positive relationship



Table 3. Construct Correlations, AVE, Means, and Standard Deviations (Sample 1 Above the Diagonal, Sample 2 Below the Diagonal) 1 M (SD)

5.70 (1.12)

AVE Sample 1

2

3

4

5

6

4.58 (1.19)

3.32 (1.18)

4.99 (1.27)

4.85 (1.30)

4.69 (1.23)

.76

1. Agreeableness 2. Openness to experience

.34***

3. Global Identification

.26***

.58

.48

.61

.29

.20

.16*

.21***

.21*

.07

.22***

.13*

.16

–.06

–.06

.07

.40***

.03

–.09

.44***

4. National identification

.30***

.08

.15*

.40***

.55***

.56***

.16

6. LCCP advertisements

.33***

.36***

.33***

.44***

.11

.31***

–.02

8. Gender 9. Education 10. Income 11. Population AVE Sample 2 M (SD)

–.12

.48***

.03 .72*** –.14

.02

.30**

.08

.18*

–.02

.06

–.15

–.04

–.08

.05

–.02

–.10

—

—

—

.38***

—

8

9

10

.54 (.50)

2.42 (.86)

2.86 (1.33)

—

.12*

.71

.72

.52

.54

.42

.42

5.65 (1.08)

4.49 (1.28)

3.65 (1.34)

4.96 (1.28)

4.59 (1.38)

4.19 (1.41)

—

11 3654.67 (4041.01) —

.10

–.07

.07

–.05

.09

–.15*

.15*

.04

.04

.02

–.03

.13*

–.08

.26***

.02

.08

–.24**

.27**

–.04

–.05

.13

–.01

.25*

–.13

.14

.03

.18*

.37***

—

—

.35***

.06

.04

–.03

—

.42*** .82***

–.05 —

35.87 (14.49)

.28***

5. GCCP advertisements 7. Age

7

.03 –.01 .18**

.14*

.31***

–.02

.02

–.07

.26***

–.05

.37***

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

2.60 (1.00)

3.00 (1.35)

.54 (.51)

.03 –.02 –.01

— 38.96 (14.77)

–.08

—

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Notes: No AVE is reported for the demographic variables, which were single-item indicators. Population based on metro- micropolitan statistical area for 2008 is reported in the thousands. Population data were not gathered in Sample 2. For gender, 0 = male, and 1 = female.

Figure 2. Standardized Path Coefficients for Hypothesized Model .27**/ .47**

Openness to Experience

Attitude Toward GCCP

–.08/ .30*

.09/ .01 .07/ –.01

.10/ .15

Agreeableness .19*/ .35**

.40**/ .58**

Global Identification

National Identification

Attitude Toward LCCP .54**/ .43**

*p < .01. **p < .001. Notes Solid lines indicate hypothesized relationship. p-values refer to Sample 1/Sample 2.

indicates that women evaluated both GCCP and LCCP advertisements more favorably than men.

Competing Models Finally, the hypothesized model is a full mediation model predicted by McCrae and Costa’s (1996) theory of personality and also supported by recent studies within the marketing domain (e.g., Mooradian, Matzler, and Szykman 2008). Nonetheless, we empirically compare the hypothesized full mediation model with two alternative specifications. First, we examine a partial mediation model in which personality, in addition to a mediating effect through identity, may also be directly related to attitude toward the ads, which produced mixed results across the two samples. In the first sample, there was no significant difference between the hypothesized full mediation model and a partial mediation model (2(10) = 10.34, p = .41), and only one of the personality traits was significantly related (extraversion was negatively related to GCCP). However, in the second sample, there was indeed an improved fit for the partial mediation model (2(10) = 45.79, p < .01). Second, we examine a direct effects model reflecting only direct effects of personality traits and identity on attitude toward GCCP and LCCP without any mediation, which also produced inconclusive results. Similarly to the partial mediation comparison, the direct effects model was not significantly different from the hypothe-

sized full mediation model in the first sample (2(11) = 10.66, p = .47), yet the results from the second sample suggest a better fit for the direct effects model (2(11) = 46.57, p < .01). In summary, we have compared the hypothesized full mediation model with two alternative specifications. The results from the first sample confirm the theorized full mediation model, yet the results from the second sample indicate that the effects of personality on GCCP and LCCP may be only partially mediated by identity. This implies that the ubiquity of personality may be even more powerful than McCrae and Costa’s (1996) personality theory suggests. Nonetheless, given the inconsistent test results between samples for each of the alternative models combined with the strong theoretical grounding for full mediation based on McCrae and Costa’s (1996) theory of personality, we are inclined to accept the hypothesized model over the alternative specifications at this time. However, it may be a fruitful opportunity for further research to examine the type of mediation in greater depth.

DISCUSSION A holistic understanding of international markets can be gained by analyzing not only the external international marketing environment but also internal characteristics, personality, and collective identity of the target consumers (Myers, Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Prior studies have shown that consumers’ brand preferences,


Table 4. Standardized Results of the Hypothesis Testing Dependent Variable Attitude Toward GCCP r2

(Sample 1: = .43) (Sample 2: r2 = .58)

Attitude Toward LCCP r2

(Sample 1: = .40) (Sample 2: r2 = .51)

Global Identification r2

(Sample 1: = .15) (Sample 2: r2 = .36)

National Identification r2

(Sample 1: = .14) (Sample 2: r2 = .23)

Standardized Coefficients Sample 1

Standardized Coefficients Sample 2

.40*** .10

.58***

Age Gender Education Income Population

–.32*** .40*** –.02 .01 .12

–.28*** .31** –.05 .07

Global identification National identification

–.08 .54***

.30** .43***

Age Gender Education Income Population

–.23* .31* –.18 .14 .01

Independent Variable Global identification National identification

Agreeableness Openness Age Gender Education Income Population Agreeableness Openness Age Gender Education Income Population

.07 .27** –.15* .08 .02 .12 –.08

.15

–.11 .35*** –.16 –.03 –.01 .47*** .19** .23* .22** –.09

.19** .09

.35*** .01

.22*** –.10 –.01 .09 –.08

.33*** –.13 –.02 .01

Notes: A subsequent Wald test of parameter constraints offers evidence that the effect of national identification on attitude toward LCCP is significantly greater than that of global identification on LCCP: (2(1) = 3.9, p < .05). Sample 1 Model fit: 2 (590) = 1229.48, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI = .93. Sample 2 Model fit: 2(637) = 1182.18, RMSEA = .065, SRMR = .06, NNFI = .92, IFI = .93, and CFI = .93.

brand usage, and even brand loyalty are determined by the extent to which brand personality and meaning is congruent with their self-concept (Lin 2010). The role of collective identity and personality traits tends to be even stronger in consumer purchase situations in which products are bought for personal consumption and product categories are identity relevant, such as objects and brands with social and symbolic meanings (Paharia et al. 2011). Indeed, consumers even actively seek to create brand meaning to fit their personality and collective identity. For example, Chinese consumers have been shown to imbue Western brands with Chinese national narratives to construct their social identities (Dong and


Tian 2009). Thus, it must be recognized that understanding both personality traits and collective identity can help marketers develop communications that reinforce the relationship between the brand and the consumer, leading to higher brand equity and brand loyalty (Orth, Malkewitz, and Bee 2010). This study is a step toward understanding the link between personality and collective identity and how they are related to GCCP and LCCP. One contribution of this research is that across two independent samples, it empirically validates that consumers exhibiting collective identities of global or national identity demonstrate more favorable attitudes toward GCCP and LCCP, respectively. We develop a

deeper understanding of people who are more responsive to GCCP/LCCP by discovering significant relationships between two personality traits (openness to experience and agreeableness) and global/local identities.

graphs, we explore how marketers can develop targeted advertising strategies by emphasizing brand characteristics that align with personality and collective identity of the target consumer segment.

In addition, this research examines GCCP and LCCP in an advertising context. In general, global advertising research has not sufficiently employed sound theoretical bases (Taylor 2010). Cultural theory and especially the cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (1980) have often been the theoretical basis for analyzing crosscultural advertising issues. Recent studies provide some guidance with respect to exploring alternative theoretical perspectives for enriching global advertising research. For example, Griffith and Yalcinkaya (2010) demonstrate how to apply resource-advantage theory to global advertising, while Zou and Volz (2010) similarly demonstrate how to apply global marketing strategy theory to global advertising. Therefore, by employing McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality, we offer an additional lens through which to view aspects of global advertising and positioning.

On the basis of the empirical findings of this study, we recommend that marketers complement GCCP and LCCP strategies with brand attributes that emphasize pertinent personality traits and collective identity. Marketers targeting a consumer segment with high national identification should use LCCP that not only associates the brand with local cultural meaning and reinforces national identity but also uses appeals and ad portrayals that highlight the agreeableness trait. Thus, from a national identity perspective, brand communications could emphasize cultural congruity by incorporating local cultural values, nationalistic appeals, colors, symbols, artifacts, and myths. From a personality perspective, brand communication could emphasize attributes that are congruent with the agreeableness personality trait. Prior studies have shown that brand personality characteristics related to agreeableness include sincerity, conviviality, and likeableness (see, e.g., Geuens, Weijters, and De Wulf 2009). Furthermore, people high on agreeableness tend to prefer transformational advertisements over informational advertisements and noncomparative advertisements over comparative advertisements (Myers, Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Thus, LCCP targeted to consumers with high national identity could benefit from integrating local cultural elements with agreeablenessrelated brand characteristics and ad appeals that tend to be transformational and noncomparative.

The results of this study offer some support for McCrae and Costa’s (1996) five-factor theory of personality, which proposes that personality traits influence selfconcept. In the current study, agreeableness and openness to experience influenced national and global identity, respectively. With these results, we can begin to build a profile for people who possess a global or national identity and understand how that is related to their attitude toward GCCP or LCCP. The evidence suggests that a person with a global identity is responsive to GCCP and is more likely to be open to experience, while a person with a national identity is responsive to LCCP and is more likely to be more agreeable.

Managerial Implications Although the GCCP versus LCCP strategies were documented and validated some time ago (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), research on identifying consumer segments that are responsive to the different strategies has been sparse. The current study helps fill this void and provides guidance to marketers with regard to characteristics of consumers who find GCCP versus LCCP strategies appealing. More specifically, some of the important implications of this study are related to the premise that incorporating both personality traits and collective identity can help marketers develop brand positioning strategies that generate positive associations with the brand. In the following para-

Conversely, when targeting consumer segments high on global identity, we recommend that GCCP not only include appeals and symbols related to the global consumption culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999) and global citizenship but also emphasize the opennessto-experience trait in brand communications. Brand personality characteristics associated with the openness trait include modern, contemporary, trendiness, simple, and intellect (Geuens, Weijters, and De Wulf 2009). People high on the openness-to-experience personality trait tend to be more innovative, have higher brand knowledge, be open to sex appeals, prefer transformational advertisements, and be attracted to sociable brands (Mulyanegara, Tsarenko, and Anderson 2009; Myers, Sen, and Alexandrov 2010). Thus, a more holistic approach to developing an effective GCCP would be to take into consideration brand attributes associated with the openness-to-experience trait and global mindedness.


Brand narratives and biographies have already been shown to be effective in terms of generating brand loyalty when they are congruent with consumers’ personality and collective identity. For example, Paharia et al. (2011) find that “underdog” brand biographies tend to resonate most when they overlap with consumers’ self-identity and also in cultures that are receptive to underdog narratives or in which such narratives are part of the national identity (e.g., American culture). Thus, it is important that marketers test these brand narratives in local markets to ensure that they resonate with target customers’ personality and collective identity. The relationship among personality, identity, and GCCP/LCCP is relevant not only for product advertising but also for employment advertisements. People are attracted to organizations that epitomize characteristics congruent with their personality (Stevens and Szmerekovsky 2010). Thus, if a multinational firm wants to actively seek applicants with high global identity, they should also use personality descriptors associated with the openness-to-experience trait in their employment advertisements. In summary, a better understanding of global and national identity and consumer personality traits can help marketers be proactive and anticipate aspirations and self-construal of the target market. We anticipate that the role of collective identities will become more pervasive and important as people increasingly become part of the globalization process and cope with forces of nationalism and globalism.

Limitations and Conclusion We made reasonable attempts to control for common method bias, and the tests performed suggest that common method bias does not pose a serious threat. However, common method bias remains a possibility in attitudinal research. In addition, the samples are from a single country, and the generalizability of these conclusions should be taken cautiously. Although McCrae and Costa’s (1996) theory of personality suggests a full mediation model, tests of competing partial mediation models produced inconsistent results across the independent samples. These results suggest that additional research is warranted to confirm the actual type of mediation involved. Further research should also focus on extending the generalizability of these findings by replicating this study in a diverse set of cultural contexts.


Further research should also focus on contexts that would potentially moderate the relationships uncovered in the U.S. sample. Societal influences such as the level of national pride may play a relevant role. For example, Germans and Swedes typically demonstrate low levels of national pride compared with Venezuelans and Americans (Smith and Kim 2006). Thus, global identification may be more prevalent in societies such as Germany and Sweden than in Venezuela and the United States. In addition, there may be an increasing occurrence of complex collective identities. These collective identities can emerge from any kind of grouping or sense of affiliation, such as sexual identity (e.g., gays and lesbians), religious identity, and occupational identity. Furthermore, consumers may share collective identities with one or more groups. For example, immigrants and ethnic consumer groups who share their collective identity with two or more cultures. Such groups may experience greater tension resulting from multiple cultural identities (Arrow and Sundberg 2004). Immigrants who have experienced recent loss of their former country have been shown to adhere to their religious identity to compensate for such loss, and as such their religious identity plays an important role in driving consumption in the host country (Hirschman, Ruvio, and Touzani 2011). Understanding the extent to which groups are influenced by their multiple collective identities may help marketers better serve these groups, such as the growing Hispanic population in the United States. We believe this study makes several important contributions to the international marketing literature. As globalization intensifies awareness of different cultures around the world and the interdependence among them, people necessarily develop views of the “self” in relation to the rest of the world. Global and national identification are among these potential self-views and can serve as a basis for segmentation. We demonstrated that consumers’ global or national identification significantly affects their preference for global or national positioning strategies. Furthermore, this study contributes to our understanding of how personality traits influence the development of these identities, which has significant implications for marketing strategy.

NOTE 1. We focus on the two personality traits most theoretically related to the variables of interest; however, we measured all five traits and included them in the

analysis. Conscientiousness ( = –.16, p < .05) and neuroticism ( = –.21, p < .01) were both negatively related to global identification in the first sample but not significant in the second sample. Extraversion was not related to identity in either sample.

REFERENCES

——— and Masaki Yuki (2007), “Culture and Social Identity,” in Handbook of Cultural Psychology, S. Kitayama and D. Cohen, eds. New York: The Guilford Press, 307–322. Cannon, Hugh M. and Attila Yaprak (2002), “Will the RealWorld Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of Cosmopolitan Consumer Behavior,” Journal of International Marketing, 10 (4), 30–52.

Akaka, Melissa Archpru and Dana L. Alden (2010), “Global Brand Positioning and Perceptions,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 37–56.

Cole, David, Jeffrey A. Ciesla, and James H. Steiger (2007), “The Insidious Effects of Failing to Include Design-Driven Correlated Residuals in Latent-Variable Covariance Structure Analysis,” Psychological Methods, 12 (4), 381–98.

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

De Mooij, Marieke and Geert Hofstede (2010), “The Hofstede Model,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 85–110.

———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents and Consequences,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 227–39. Anderson, James C. and David W. Gerbing (1988), “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach,” Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411–23. Arrow, Holly and Norman Sundberg (2004), “International Identity: Definitions, Development, and Some Implications for Global Conflict and Peace,” in Ongoing Themes in Psychology and Culture, online ed., B.N. Setiadi, A. Supratiknya, W.J. Lonner, and Y.H. Poortinga, eds. Melbourne, FL: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology, (accessed October 25, 2011), [available at http://www.iaccp.org]. Ashforth, Blake E. and Fred Mael (1989), “Social Identity Theory and the Organization,” Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20–39. Baumgartner, Hans (2002), “Toward a Personology of the Consumer,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (2), 286–92. Bergkvist, Lars and John R. Rossiter (2007), “The Predictive Validity of Multiple-Item Versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Constructs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (May), 175–84. Bitner, Mary Jo, Bernard H. Booms, and Mary Stanfield Tetreault (1990), “The Service Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (January), 71–84. Brewer, Marilynn B. and Wendi L. Gardner (1996), “Who Is This ‘We’? Levels of Collective Identity and Self Representation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1), 83–93.

Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Yolanda Ruiz (1997), “Affective Bicultural and Global-Human Identity Scales for MexicanAmerican Adolescents,” Psychological Reports, 80 (April), 1027–39. Dong, Lily and Kelly Tian (2009), “The Use of Western Brands in Asserting Chinese National Identity,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 504–523. Festinger, Leon A. (1957), Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39–50. Geuens, Maggie, Bert Weijters, and Kristof de Wulf (2009), “A New Measure of Brand Personality,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (2), 97–107. Goldberg, Lewis R. (1993), “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,” American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26–34. Griffith, David A. and Goksel Yalcinkaya (2010), “ResourceAdvantage Theory: A Foundation for New Insights into Global Advertising Research,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 15–36. Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture,” in Theory, Culture and Society, M. Featherstone, ed. London: Sage Publications, 237–51. Hirschman, Elizabeth C., Ayalla A. Ruvio, and Mourad Touzani (2011), “Breaking Bread with Abraham’s Children: Christians, Jews and Muslims’ Holiday Consumption in Dominant, Minority and Diasporic Communities,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39 (3), 429–48. Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.


——— and Robert R. McCrae (2004), “Personality and Culture Revisited: Linking Traits and Dimensions of Culture,” CrossCultural Research, 38 (1), 52–88.

——— and Oliver P. John (1992), “An Introduction to the FiveFactor Model and Its Applications,” Journal of Personality, 60 (2), 175–215.

Hogg, Michael A. (2003), “Social Identity,” in Handbook of Self and Identity, M.R. Leary and J.P. Tangney, eds. New York: The Guilford Press, 462–79.

Mooradian, Todd A., Kurt Matzler, and Lisa Szykman (2008), “Empathetic Responses to Advertising: Testing a Network of Antecedents and Consequences,” Marketing Letters, 19 (2), 79–92.

Iversen, Nina M. and Leif E. Hem (2011), “Reciprocal Transfer Effects for Brand Extensions of Global or Local Origin: Evidence from Norway,” International Marketing Review, 28 (4), 365–411. Jöreskog, Karl G., Dag Sörbom, Stephen Du Toit, and Mathilda Du Toit (2000), LISREL 8: New Statistical Features, 2d ed. Chicago: Scientific Software International. Katsikeas, Constantine, Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theodosiou (2006), “Strategy Fit and Performance Consequences of International Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Management Journal, 27 (9), 867–90. Keillor, Bruce D., G. Tomas M. Hult, Robert C. Erffmeyer, and Emin Babakus (1996), “NATID: The Development and Application of National Identity Measure for Use in International Marketing,” Journal of International Marketing, 4 (2), 57–73. Kitayama, Shinobu, Hazel R. Markus, Hisaya Matsumoto, and Vinai Norasakkunkit (1997), “Individual and Collective Processes in the Construction of the Self: Self-Enhancement in the United States and Self-Criticism in Japan,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (6), 1245–67. Levy, Orly, Schon Beechler, Sully Taylor, and Nakiye A. Boyacigiller (2007), “What We Talk About When We Talk About ‘Global Mindset’: Managerial Cognition in Multinational Corporations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (2), 231–58. Lin, Long-Yi (2010), “The Relationship of Consumer Personality Trait, Brand Personality and Brand Loyalty: An Empirical Study of Toys and Video Games Buyers,” Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19 (1), 4–17. Lun, Vivian M.C. and Michael H. Bond (2006), “Achieving Relationship Harmony in Groups and Its Consequence for Group Performance,” Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 195–202. McCrae, Robert R. (1987), “Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (6), 1258–65. ——— and Paul T. Costa (1996), “Toward a New Generation of Personality Theories: Theoretical Contexts for the Five-Factor Model,” in The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, J.S. Wiggins, ed. New York: Guilford Press.


Mowen, John C. (2000), The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer Behavior. Boston: Kluwer Academic. Mulyanegara, Riza C., Yelena Tsarenko, and Alastair Anderson (2009), “The Big Five and Brand Personality: Investigating the Impact of Consumer Personality on Preferences Towards Particular Brand Personality,” Journal of Brand Management, 16 (4), 234–47. Myers, Susan D., Sandipan Sen, and Aliosha Alexandrov (2010), “The Moderating Effect of Personality Traits on Attitudes Toward Advertisements: A Contingency Framework,” Management & Marketing, 5 (3), 3–20. Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2008), “Consumer World-Mindedness, Social-Mindedness, and Store Image,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3), 84–107. ——— and ——— (2011), “Consumer World-Mindedness and Attitudes to Product Positioning in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33. Orth, Ulrich R., Keven Malkewitz, and Colleen Bee (2010), “Gender and Personality Drivers of Consumer Mixed Emotional Response to Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32 (1), 69–80. Paharia, Neeru, Anat Keinan, Jill Avery, and Juliet B. Schor (2011), “The Underdog Effect: The Marketing of Disadvantage and Determination through Brand Biography,” Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (5), 775–90. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. Mackenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879–903. Roberts, Brent W. and Richard W. Robins (2000), “Broad Dispositions, Broad Aspirations: The Intersection of Personality Traits and Major Life Goals,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (10), 1284–96. Robertson, Roland (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture. London: Sage Publications. Sampson, Donald L. and Howard P. Smith (1957), “A Scale to Measure World-Minded Attitudes,” Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1), 99–106.

Sedikides, Constantine and Marilynn B. Brewer (2001), “Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self: Partners, Opponents, or Strangers?” in Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, C. Sedikides and M.B. Brewer, eds. Philadelphia: Psychology Press, 1–4. Sibley Chris G. and John Duckitt (2009), “Big-Five Personality, Social Worldviews, and Ideological Attitudes: Further Tests of a Dual Process Cognitive-Motivational Model,” Journal of Social Psychology, 149 (5), 545–61. Smith, Anthony D. (1991), National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press. Smith, Tom W. and Seokho Kim (2006), “National Pride in Comparative Perspective: 1995/96 and 2003/04,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18 (1), 127–36. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65. ——— and Martijn G. de Jong (2010), “A Global Investigation into the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes Toward Global and Local Products,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (November), 18–40. Stevens, Charles D. and Joseph G. Szmerekovsky (2010), “Attraction to Employment Advertisements: Advertisement Wording and Personality Characteristics,” Journal of Managerial Issues, 22 (1), 107–126. Sujan, Harish (2001), “The 3M Model of Motivation and Personality: Theory and Empirical Applications to Consumer

Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (August), 396–97. Swann, William B., Jr. (1983), “Self-Verification: Bringing Social Reality into Harmony with the Self,” in Psychological Perspectives on The Self, J. Suls and A.G. Greenwald, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ———, Jeffrey T. Polzer, Daniel C. Seyle, and Sei Jin Ko (2004), “Finding Value in Diversity: Verification of Personal and Social Self-Views in Diverse Groups,” Academy of Management Review, 29 (1), 9–27. Taylor, Charles R. (2010), “Toward Stronger Theory Development in International Advertising Research,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 9–14. Tesch, Stephanie A. and Kathleen A. Cameron (1987), “Openness to Experience and Development of Adult Identity,” Journal of Personality, 55 (4), 615–30. Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark J. Arnold, Peter Magnusson, Srdan Zdravkovic, and Joyce Xin Zhou (2009), “Technology Readiness and Usage: A Global-Identity Perspective,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 250–65. Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), “The Impact of Accessible Identities on the Evaluation of Global Versus Local Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524–37. Zou, Shaoming and Yong Z. Volz (2010), “An Integrated Theory of Global Advertising: An Application of the GMS Theory,” International Journal of Advertising, 29 (1), 57–84.
