AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF ALTRUISM ON PRODUCTCHOICE IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

ByRaymond Alan Hopkins

A DISSERTATION

Submitted toSchool of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirementsfor the Degree of

DOCTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

1997

A Dissertationentitled

AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF ALTRUISM ON PRODUCTCHOICE IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

By

Raymond Alan Hopkins

We hereby certify that this Dissertation submitted by Raymond Alan Hopkins conforms to the acceptable standards, and as such is fully adequate in scope and quality. It is therefore approved as the fulfillment of the Dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Business Administration.

Approved:

Thomas Powers, Ph.d. DateCommittee Chair

Richard Plank, Ph.d. DateCommittee Member

Moshe Levin, Ph.d. DateCommittee Member

Ronald Needleman, Ph.d. DateDirector, Doctoral Research

Randolph A. Pohlman, Ph.d. DateDean School of Business and Entrepreneurship

Nova Southeastern University1997

CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the

language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is

given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions or writings of another.

Signed: Raymond Alan Hopkins

AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACT OF ALTRUISM ON PRODUCTCHOICE IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE

ByRAYMOND ALAN HOPKINS

American consumers have established and maintained a healthy interest in purchasing what the world market has to offer. Economists have expressed concern about the relationship between the U.S. policy of free trade and its effects on manufacturing employment and living standards of the American work force. It has been estimated that the 1990 loss of real earnings by U.S. production workers due to imports is $300 billion. There has been a marked upward trend in the nation’s unemployment rate to not less than five percent since 1970. Those worst affected by this trend have been less-skilled workers, whose ranks are disproportionately composed of minorities, youth, and women.

The decision by a consumer to choose a foreign product, as opposed to a domestic offering has major strategic and economic implications. As the number of international competitors in the domestic market place multiplies, American marketing executives in the consumer goods industry are increasingly under pressure to develop and implement innovative product philosophies and marketing campaign strategies. Therefore, purpose of this study was to propose methodology to explore the influence of helping behavior on product choice in an international context. The major research question posed was: Are consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and helping behavior related to the purchase choice American consumers make between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture.

The theory of altruism provides a useful framework for understanding consumer motivations in a domestic versus foreign product choice decision. This theory, traceable to the universal norm of reciprocity, the norm of giving, the development of conscience and moral judgment, attempts to explain behavior increasing another’s welfare in terms of an interaction between cognitive, cultural, and behavioral determinants.

It was found that consumer ethnocentrism is clearly related to purchase choice. Further, tendencies toward helping behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, by themselves, have no correlation with purchase choice. Furthermore, consumer ethnocentrism and helping behavior, in combination, are better predictors of consumer choice than cognitive moral development. As a result, the American consumer with significant ethnocentric and helping behavior tendencies is likely to purchase a product of domestic manufacture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Completing the requirements of a doctoral program demands the guidance, support and energies of many. Without them, my successful completion of the doctoral studies and this research effort would not have been possible.

First, and foremost, I acknowledge my debt to my family. For their sacrifices and support of my dream, I offer my children, Joanna and David, my heartfelt gratitude. To my wife, Madeleine, I acknowledge my greatest debt. It is to you that I dedicate this project. Without your love and support, I could not have begun my studies and this research effort, much less complete them.

A number of supporters come from the academic community and contribute in many indispensable ways. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my debt to you who have instructed, encouraged, and otherwise supported my effort. I greatly appreciate the encouragement of Dr. Gerry Bedore and support of Dr. Brian Shipley. I appreciate even more the support of my dissertation committee, in particular, the invaluable guidance and support of Dr. Tom Powers, Chair. Dr. Richard Plank and Dr. Moshe Levin have contributed significantly to the success of this project.

Finally, I offer many thanks to those outside the academic community -- fellow students, business associates, and those participating in surveys and the gathering of information. In particular, I owe a debt of gratitude to McDonnell Douglas Corporation for playing an important role in financing my doctoral endeavors.

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

List of Tables.............................................................................................. viii

List of Figures............................................................................................. ix

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................. 1

Background of the Problem................................................................... 1Statement of the Problem...................................................................... 2Theoretical Framework......................................................................... 3Definition of Terms............................................................................... 5Limitations of the Research................................................................... 7Justification and Rationale..................................................................... 9Summary............................................................................................... 9

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE....................................................... 11

History of the Topic and Problem......................................................... 11International Competitiveness............................................................... 14International Product Choice................................................................. 16Core Theory: Altruism.......................................................................... 17Components of the Literature................................................................ 23Summary of What is Known and Unknown.......................................... 51Contribution to the Literature................................................................ 52

III. METHODOLOGY................................................................................ 54

Overview............................................................................................... 54Operationalization of Variables............................................................. 54Research Questions and Hypotheses...................................................... 57Sampling Method.................................................................................. 58Measurement or Instrumentation........................................................... 58Instrument Pilot..................................................................................... 61Data Collection Procedure..................................................................... 62Data Analysis Method........................................................................... 63Multicollinearity and Reliability Issues................................................. 63Summary............................................................................................... 65

PageIV. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS.......................... 66

Introduction........................................................................................... 66Demographic Profile of Respondents.................................................... 66Response Rate....................................................................................... 70Measurement Results............................................................................. 71Substantive Results............................................................................... 77Discussion............................................................................................. 80Summary............................................................................................... 83

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................... 85

Introduction........................................................................................... 85Research Questions............................................................................... 85Theoretical Implications........................................................................ 87Managerial Implications........................................................................ 89Research Implications........................................................................... 92Summary............................................................................................... 94

AppendixA. Defining Issues Test.............................................................................. 96

B. Self-Report Altruism Scale.................................................................... 105

C. CETSCALE.......................................................................................... 107

D. Survey Evaluation Form........................................................................ 109

E. Introductory Cover Letter...................................................................... 111

F. Factor Analysis..................................................................................... 116F-1, Factor Analysis - Self Report Altruism Scale................................. 116F-2, Factor Analysis - CETSCALE....................................................... 118

G. Logistic Regression............................................................................... 120G-1, Simple Logistic Regression of Consumer Ethnocentrism.............. 120G-2, Simple Logistic Regression of Cognitive Moral Development...... 121G-3, Simple Logistic Regression of Helping Behavior.......................... 122G-4, Multiple Logistic Regression of All Predictor Variables............... 123

H. Permission to Use the Defining Issues Test........................................... 125

REFERENCES CITED............................................................................... 127BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................... 144

LIST OF TABLESPage

1. Summary of the Six Stages of Moral Development............................... 45

2. Correlation Matrix................................................................................. 64

3. Gender - Sample vs. 1990 Maricopa County, AZ.................................. 67

4. Age - Sample vs. 1990 Maricopa County, AZ....................................... 67

5. Education Level - Sample vs. 1990 Maricopa County, AZ.................... 68

6. Marital Status - Sample vs. 1990 Maricopa County, AZ........................ 68

7. Vehicle Type......................................................................................... 69

8. Vehicle Acquisition............................................................................... 69

9. Vehicle Manufacture............................................................................. 69

10. Price Paid for Vehicle........................................................................... 69

11. Household Composition........................................................................ 70

12. Total Household Income - Sample vs. 1990 Maricopa County, AZ....... 70

13. Parameter Estimates - Consumer Ethnocentrism................................... 78

14. Parameter Estimates - Cognitive Moral Development........................... 78

15. Parameter Estimates - Helping Behavior............................................... 79

16. Parameter Estimates - All Predictor Variables....................................... 80

17. Parameter Estimates - Consumer Ethnocentrism and Helping Behavior 80

18. Initial Statistics - Principal Component Analysis................................... 116

19. Factor Transformation Matrix............................................................... 117

20. Initial Statistics - Principal Component Analysis................................... 118

21. Final Statistics - Rotated Factor Matrix................................................. 118

22. Factor Transformation Matrix............................................................... 118

LIST OF FIGURES

Page1. A Model of Helping Behavior Applied to Product Choice..................... 55

2. Scree Plot, Total Variance Associate with Each Factor of the Self Report 117Altruism Scale

3. Scree Plot, Total Variance Associate with Each Factor of the CETSCALE 119

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the ProblemAs economic activity around the world has globalized, free trade policies

combined with advances in the production and delivery of goods have provided

consumers access to an unprecedented variety of goods, value and price. This is no less

true in the United States. American consumers have maintained their appetite for foreign

goods, as evidenced by the chronically bloated U.S. trade deficit that hit $9.37 billion in

1994 (Chicago Tribune, 1994). This trend, partially the result of the U.S. free trade

policy, and its impact on the American workforce, has not gone unobserved. Economists

have expressed concern about the relationship between the U.S. policy of free trade, its

effects on manufacturing employment, and living standards of the American work force.

Legislators, interest groups, and others have asked to see the evidence supporting these

claims. The evidence exists, however, its message focuses in greater detail on certain

economic impacts than on others.

Among the economists who have recently written books and articles addressing

concerns about American manufacturing and trade are Batra (1993), Briggs (1995) and

Luttwak (1993). Batra (1993), for example, in addressing the American transition to a

free trade economy in 1973, maintains trade is anything but free. This is especially true

when one realizes real wages in the United States peaked and began a long decline that

has continued to this day. The deindustrialization of the United States, in the face of

inexpensive imports, has caused a sharp drop in productivity growth as more Americans

have had to seek jobs in service industries. Batra (1993) has estimated the 1990 loss of

real earnings by production workers resulting from imports at more than $300 billion per

year (p. 162). Luttwak (1993) declared the United States is in danger of becoming a

“Third-World” country in the international geo-economic struggle for industrial

supremacy. He cites as evidence the globalization of industry characterized by job-

displacing imports as a major cause of the rate of relative impoverishment in the U.S.

Further, Briggs (1995) cites a marked upward trend in the nation’s unemployment rate

from the mid-3 percent range since the mid-1960s to a rate not less than 5 percent since

1970 (p. 42). He notes those worst affected by this trend of gradually rising

unemployment have been less-skilled workers whose ranks are disproportionately

composed of minorities, youth and women. On one point there is virtually unanimous

agreement: international trade and manufacturing are undeniably linked to one another.

Statement of the ProblemAs the number of international competitors in the domestic market place

multiplies, American marketing executives in the consumer goods industry are

increasingly under pressure to develop and execute innovative product philosophies and

marketing campaign strategies. This is especially true in those sectors of the American

economy where international competitors are exerting aggressive expansion efforts. To

counteract these efforts some members of the marketing profession have employed “Buy

American” campaigns. Some maintain such campaigns can backfire on those who make

them the focus of their marketing efforts (Breese, 1992). Others maintain “Buy

American” campaigns will not make any dent in the automobile market (Brown, 1992).

Still others, urging American consumers to “Buy American,” are finding some success

(Dillin, 1992). It appears few marketing executives have applied the theory of altruism

in their “Buy American” campaigns with the recipient of consumer help being the

American worker. Therefore, the research problem is developing a marketing strategy

directed toward the process by which American consumers choose between products of

U.S. and foreign manufacture. The context in which this problem will be addressed is the

automobile industry.

The purpose of this study is to propose a model of helping behavior applied to

product choice, to test this model empirically, and to draw marketing implications from the

findings. The proposed model examines the relationship, if any, between the independent

variables of consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development and helping behavior

and the dependent variable of product choice as it relates to the purchase of an automobile.

The model used in this study is discussed in detail in the Operationalization of Variables

section of Chapter III.

Theoretical FrameworkThe decision by a consumer to choose a foreign product, as opposed to a domestic

offering, has major strategic and economic implications. Altruism, a construct being

given increasing attention in the marketing literature (Bendapudi et al., 1996), provides a

useful basis for proposing a model of behavior applied to consumer choice and

formulating a marketing strategy from the findings. This concept of behavior is traceable

to Gouldner's (1960) proposition regarding the universal norm of reciprocity; Leed's

(1963) suggestion prescribing the norm of giving; Piaget's (1932) and Kohlberg's (1958,

1969) approach towards the development of moral judgment, and Aronfreed's (1968)

conceptualization of conscience development. The norm of reciprocity, according to

Gouldner, demands people should help those who have helped them, and not injure those

who have helped them. Gouldner reasoned reciprocity obliges a recipient to repay his

benefactor. The strength of the obligation varies with the needs of the parties in the

exchange, the resources of the donor, the donor’s motives, and the constraints perceived

or absent from the giving act (p. 171). Leed’s (1963) norm of giving prescribes

satisfaction of three criteria:

1. The person who engages in giving treats it as an end in itself. He anticipates no other satisfaction or gain than the pleasure of contributing to the welfare of others.2. The person gives voluntarily. He is acting beyond the call of duty and not fulfilling stipulated role obligations.3. On balance, the person ‘is doing good’ as judged by the recipient and spectators to the action.

Piaget's (1932) cognitive-developmental theory maintains the structure of a child’s moral

judgment transforms in stages similar to those in its general cognitive development.

Kohlberg (1958, 1969), who regarded altruism as one aspect of the many that constitute

morality, refined Piaget’s approach, interpreting moral development as a process of

increasing complexity through a maximum of six stages. Aronfreed's (1968)

conceptualization of conscience development argued helping behavior requires a history

of reinforcement and the development of a self-reward mechanism. Children are able to

monitor their behavior in the absence of control by actual or anticipated external

outcomes with immediate consequences for themselves.

Taken as a whole, altruism attempts to explain the social conditions for helping

behavior or implicitly offer a basis for such conduct. This theoretical framework

approaches the explanation of human behavior in terms of an interaction between

cognitive, cultural, and behavioral determinants (Bar-Tal, 1976, pp. 14-37). It tends to

see the role of rewards as both conveying information about the optimal response and

providing incentive motivation for a given act because of the anticipated reward. In

addition, the social learning principles of this theory place special emphasis on the

important roles played by vicarious, and self-reward processes (Bandura, 1971).

Definition of TermsThe problem of defining altruism and determining its existence is one addressed

by many authors. August Comte (1798-1857) (1875), credited with first use of the term,

maintained some social behavior was unselfishly motivated to benefit others (p. 556).

Before his use of the term, authors described the phenomenon of helping others as

benevolence (Hume, 1896), charity (Aquinas, 1917), compassion (Smith, 1853) and

friendship (Aristotle, 1932). Since Comte, there has been disagreement about the precise

definition of altruism; however, many authors agree that helping behavior voluntarily

benefits another without the expectation of reward (Berkowitz, 1972; Krebs, 1970).

Midlarsky (1968), defined altruism

as a subcategory of aiding, referring to helpful actions which incur some cost to the individual but bring either very little or nothing by way of gain, relative to the magnitude of the investment (p. 229).

Bryan and Test (1967) characterize altruism as

those acts wherein individuals share or sacrifice a presumed positive reinforcer for no apparent social or material gain (p. 400).

Walster and Piliavin (1972) maintained that

altruistic behavior is generally thought of as behavior that benefits another rather than the self-as something that is done ‘out of the goodness’ of one’s heart, (p. 166).

C. D. Batson (1991) has most recently defined altruism

as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare (p. 6).

Beyond these definitions there is some controversy requiring the satisfaction of

certain conditions and whether altruism should be self-rewarding. To be truly altruistic,

behavior must empathize with the needs of another (Aronfreed, 1970; Cohen, 1972), be

self-sacrificing (Campbell, 1975, 1978; Hatfield, Walster and Piliavin, 1978; Krebs,

1970; Midlarsky, 1968, Wispé, 1978), as well as be treated as an end itself, voluntary,

and judged by others as doing good (Leeds, 1963). Some approaches to defining

altruism include seeking self-rewards that are self-administered (e.g., feelings of

satisfaction, pride or pleasure as a consequence of a particular act.) (Cialdini, Baumann,

and Kenrick, 1981; Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent, 1973, Bar-Tal, 1976).

For the purpose of this study, the following terms will be defined and used as

follows:

Consumer ethnocentrism: The beliefs held by American consumers about the propriety

of purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma, 1987).

Cognitive moral development: The progressive way in which individuals acquire,

through time, an increasingly accurate understanding of the nature of their moral

obligations (Rest, 1979)

Helping behavior: as a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s

welfare (Batson, 1991).

Limitations of the ResearchThis is a field study with limitations inherent in the nature of ex post facto

research methodologies (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 64). The study’s design is

aimed at ascertaining the relation, if any, among psychological variables. Its most

serious limitation, its nonexperimental character, accounts for the possible existence of

other variables and potential correlations. Consequently, the manipulation and

randomization control methodologies of experimental research are not available. Indirect

means of controlling variables and variance must suffice (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 349). This

is considered satisfactory for the scope of this study.

A methodological shortcoming of the research design is its inability to certify the

self-selected respondent groups, American consumers who purchase automobiles of

American manufacture and those who purchase automobiles of foreign manufacture, would

have been equivalent had they not been exposed to the experimental variables (Campbell

and Stanley, 1963, p. 12). The inability of the research design to certify the equivalence

of the respondent groups necessitates controlling extraneous factors, which might

produce errors confounding the effect of the experimental treatment. Self-selection,

experimental mortality, the interaction of selection and maturation, and the interaction of

selection and experimental treatment potentially constitute sources of error for any study

(Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 8). The error that non-random self-selection may

introduce is considered acceptable because the exploratory nature of this study will not

be used to determine cause (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 64; Kerlinger, 1986, p. 350).

In addition, the interaction of selection and maturation are not considered likely sources

of error. Subjects of the study are not likely to drop-out or suffer the effects of

maturation over the short period of time the experimental treatment is applied. More

serious is the possible error that the interaction of selection and experimental treatment

would introduce. To ensure the effect of this interaction is negligible, an effort will be

made to ensure the experimental treatment is applied to a homogeneous sample.

This study will utilize the “drop and collect” technique to collect survey data

(Brown, 1987). This methodology provides the researcher the best opportunity to

explain the study and increase response rates attributable to the initial personal contact

providing an opportunity to encourage participation and to explain the nature of the

survey at length. Despite these advantages, respondents may choose not to clarify any

misunderstanding of survey questions, may not want to report their answer, and even

provide intentionally incorrect answers (Fowler, 1993, p. 86). To offset these potential

sources of error, an effort will be made to minimize a sense of judgment in the

introduction and vocabulary used. An additional effort will be made to maximize the

importance of accuracy, while reassuring respondents of the confidentiality of their

response and the maintenance of their anonymity. Although the motivation and,

possibly, sex of the delivery agent may affect the rate of response, these possible sources

of bias are not expected to pose a serious problem in generalizing the results of this

study. This limitation is considered acceptable for the scope and intent of this survey.

An additional limitation is this study’s reliance on a multistage cluster sample.

Although the likelihood that such a sampling procedure may bias the results of this study,

this risk is considered acceptable given this study’s exploratory nature.

Justification and RationaleThe aim of this study is to present a theoretical, empirical, and managerial

perspective for developing an altruism-based marketing strategy. In particular, the study

examines consumer choice in light of a model of helping behavior directed toward

identifying significant correlations between consumer beliefs, motives, and moral

obligations and product choice.

A review of the literature addressing helping behavior indicates most of the research

has tested independent variables linked to characteristics of both the benefactor and the

recipient. Research applying the theory to consumer behavior is somewhat unique

(Federouch, 1990; Olsen, Granzin and Biswas, 1993) and therefore, limits a full

understanding of altruism as it relates to consumer choice. Additionally, this scarcity

provides no basis for answering specific questions, testing specific hypotheses, or

suggesting further research.

An understanding of significant correlations identified by this study can have major

implications for individuals, interest groups, and firms in the market segments most affected

by international competition, the apparel and automotive industries (Sloan, 1986). Firms

understanding the significance of any correlations identified will be able to structure their

marketing strategy appropriately. As a result, they should be able to maximize those

resources determined to be most effective in influencing the consumer’s purchase decision.

These interests, together with the possibility of identifying additional research opportunities,

suggest this research is important and justified.

SummaryThis chapter has identified the problem of developing a “Buy American” marketing

strategy within the backdrop of international trade and its impact on the American

workforce. It has further identified that few marketing executives, attempting to counteract

the aggressive expansion efforts of their international competitors, have applied the theory

of altruism in their marketing campaigns. The theory of altruism, other wise known as

helping behavior theory, has been examined and definitions have been provided as a

foundation for examining the contributions researchers have made to date.

The interests of individuals, interest groups, and business firms indicate the

importance and justification of conducting this study in spite of the limitations the chapter

identifies.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREThis chapter provides a review of the literature on consumer decision-making, the

theory of altruism, and the determinants of helping. It begins with a history of the topic

and problem, an assessment of American competitiveness in the global market place and

continues with a review of the consumer decision-making process and product choice. It

examines the theoretical basis of altruism and its development, and continues with a

review of the literature addressing helping behavior, with an emphasis on personality

theory determinants of helping behavior. The chapter identifies what is known and

unknown, identifies the contribution this study makes to the literature, and concludes

with a summary.

History of the Topic and ProblemSeveral economic trends have changed the standards on which the United States

competes in the world economy. International economic competition, previously based

on productivity and price, requires the United States and its labor force to compete today

on the added standards of quality, variety, customization, convenience and timeliness

(Poindexter, 1993). These added competitive standards demand the American worker

respond with new skills. Without these skills, he can expect to see his international

competitor hired for the best employment opportunities. The first of these economic

trends is the shift from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy.

Between 1980 and 1985, America’s traditional automobile, steel and oil industries felt

the brunt of this economic shift when the loss of market share effected drastic

downsizing and the closing of numerous plants. This shift displaced almost 300,000 jobs

in manufacturing and prompted an equal decline in agriculture and mining. It was also

responsible for generating an expected increase of almost 17 million jobs in the

American economy’s service sector (Business and Workers Must Play by New Economic

Rules, 1991, p. 10). The dramatic improvement of technology, the second economic

trend, has increased the complexity of work requiring a corresponding increase in the

quality of its human element. Today, a technologically sophisticated labor force is

manufacturing high-quality products customized to the demands of the market place.

The final economic trend is the shift from a domestic-based economy to a global

economy. The opening of the world’s financial markets, improved computer and

telecommunications, and the rise in import penetration in the big economies has spurred

this trend. The United States, as impacted by these economic trends, can only sustain its

economic growth in parallel with the world economy (Poindexter, 1993). The

corresponding impact of foreign trade on the performance of the U.S. labor market,

therefore, becomes increasingly important.

In 1995, the Economic Policy Institute in Washington undertook an extensive

review of the broad range of independent research studies examining the relationship

between foreign trade and the U.S. standard of living. The authors of the report, Dale

Belman and Thea Lee (Belman and Lee, 1995), cite increasing wage inequality and a

decline in the number of manufacturing jobs in the U.S. that roughly coincide with the

rapid rise in the U.S. trade deficit and expanding trade with developing countries

(Crafted With Pride in U.S.A. Council, Inc., 1994). The shift of jobs from the lucrative

manufacturing sector into the service sector has reduced average real wages, thus

heightening wage inequality between the most- and least-educated workers during the

past decade. As the volume of international trade increases, the pressure on U.S. jobs

and wages will increase as labor-abundant countries like China, India and those of

Eastern Europe accelerate their entrance into the international market place.

By displacing labor from the manufacturing sector, international trade will

increase the supply of labor to other sectors and pressure wages in those sectors

downward. The net effects, according to Belman and Lee, may be the loss of the

manufacturing sector’s wage leadership and poor wage performance throughout the U.S.

economy. Researchers have thoroughly examined the effect of international trade on

wage inequality. Although estimates of the effect vary considerably, nearly all suggest

that international trade has adversely affected the economic position of less skilled

workers in the American economy.

Liberalization of the world trading system and increased trade with developing

countries are bringing hundred of millions of low-wage workers into the world economy.

As trade barriers fall this labor trend can be expected to bring about a convergence of the

wages paid unskilled workers in both rich and poor countries.

The report notes that the bulk of trade in manufactured goods has historically

been with countries whose wage rates were comparable to or approaching those of the

U.S. As the proportion of trade with developing countries increases, U.S. workers

producing competitive products will increasingly experience wage rate reductions and

job losses. The Belman-Lee report notes trade with developing countries causes three to

four times the job loss as trade with developed countries.

The significance of the Economic Policy Institute report should concern less-

skilled American workers as well as the American consumer. It raises questions about

the competitiveness of the United States in the global market place.

International CompetitivenessA review of the literature indicates researchers and others have yet to settle on a

precise definition of international competitiveness. The President’s Commission on

Industrial Competitiveness (United States, 1985) offered one of the first defining it at the

firm level as a condition whereby

[a firm] can produce products or services of superior quality or lower costs than its domestic and international competitors

and at the national level

as the degree to which a nation can under freed and fair market conditions produce goods and services that meet the test of international markets while simultaneously maintaining or expanding the real income of its citizens (1985, 6).

Scott defined it as

a nation state’s ability to produce, distribute, and service goods in the international economy in competition with goods and services produced in other countries and to do so in a way that earns a rising standard of living (Scott and Lodge, 1986, 14).

Jones and Teece maintain:

1. Competitiveness is the ability of an economy’s GNP and GNP per capita to grow as fast as any other major economy.

2. Competitiveness is the degree to which a nation, in a world of open markets, produces goods and services that meet the tests of the marketplace while simultaneously expanding GNP and GNP per capita at least as fast as any other major trading economy (Jones and Teece, 1987, 5).

Lawrence offered three criteria essential to being internationally competitive:

1. comparative performance of countries based on criteria considered important, e.g. labor productivity

2. performance in international trade - e.g. current account balance.3. efficiency - is the nation doing the best it can (Lawrence, 1984, 17-18)

The concept of productivity has been associated with competitiveness. The 1988

MIT Commission implicitly defined competitiveness in the title of its report as the

“productive edge.” Porter concurred with this definition when he later argued in 1991

that

the only meaningful concept of competitiveness at the national level is productivity (Porter, 1991, 6).

However, international competitiveness is not simply limited to measures of

economic growth or productivity improvements. These measures fall short of fully

addressing the full meaning of the concept for several reasons. A nation can stimulate

economic growth by developing untapped natural resources or foreign borrowing.

Likewise, productivity improvements do not consider the problems of pricing for

commodities and the value added by product innovation (Jones and Teece, 1987, 2).

The authors of these definitions also acknowledge and share a general concern

that the U.S. economy is no longer necessarily the world’s pre-eminent economic power

(“Progress made but concerns about over U.S. competitiveness,” September, 1994, p. 8).

This is evidenced by sluggish growth in employment in the 1990s and a trade deficit that

widened in the first five months of 1994 to $100.7 billion, compared with $75.7 billion

in 1993 (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 1994). Thus Jones and Teece argue:

The United States has lost the internationally competitive station that it occupied for much of this century. The American people have been insulated from all but an inkling of the direct impact of this process by massive foreign borrowings which have propped up levels of living. Unless US international competitiveness expands quickly and dramatically this decade, painful adjustments will be experienced over the decades ahead, with attendant damage to the economic political and social infrastructure of the nation and of nations which are interdependent with us (Jones and Teece, 1987,7).

U.S. business, labor and university leaders polled in the 1994 Competitiveness

Index share this concern. The study conducted by the Council on Competitiveness

determined the nation has not adequately addressed fundamental concerns such as

improving K-12 education and long-term investment. Although the economy and health

of U.S. corporations are good, the nation’s greatest challenges are still to come. Japan

remains the top competitor with the newly industrialized Asian countries a close second

followed by China. Specific industries such as American electronic components and

equipment, machine tools, robotics, and automobiles are considered likely to face tough

competition during the next five years (“Progress made but concerns about over U.S.

competitiveness,” September, 1994, p. 8).

International Product ChoiceIn today's global economy, international manufacturers offer the American

consumer a tremendous variety of products. These product offerings provide the

American consumer a tremendous variety of quality, value and price. They additionally

stir emotions. Observers in Government and industry, especially those in the labor

movement, are increasingly concerned about the skyrocketing volume of imported goods.

The U.S. trade deficit has soared between 1980 and 1993 from $240 billion to over $580

billion (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1994). These statistics have aroused trade

unions and organizations such as the "Crafted with Pride in USA" Council to mount anti-

import crusades urging U.S. consumers to "buy American." Such organizations,

promoting the "Made in America" theme, are having some impact on the way Americans

perceive foreign goods. Asked if product commercials based on the patriotic theme

moved readers of Purchasing World to prefer domestic products, about half (48%) of the

respondents said "yes." Questioned about their personal buying habits, about a third of

the respondents responded they "mostly buy domestic products," although a quarter of

them admitted to not giving country-of-origin a second thought (Modic, 1990).

Core Theory: Altruism

Theoretical Development

Research into helping behavior can be directly traced to several theoretical

sources: Gouldner's (1960) proposition regarding the prevalence of the universal norm of

reciprocity; Leed's (1963) suggestion regarding the prescription of the norm of giving;

Piaget's (1932) and Kohlberg's (1958, 1969) approach towards the development of moral

judgment; and Aronfreed's (1968) conceptualization of conscience development. These

theories explicitly discuss social conditions for helping behavior, or implicitly offer a

basis for helping behavior. Problem-oriented research versus a particular theory has

prompted most helping behavior research. Questions about the apathy people feel toward

the needs of others, the conditions that promote helping, and the existence of personal

characteristics or tendencies to help have guided the study of helping behavior.

Researchers have advanced the study of helping behavior in two major theoretical

directions to answer different questions. One direction has lead to attempts to explain the

development of helping behavior; the other has involved attempts to explain how helping

behavior is fostered and how individuals decide to offer their help.

The development of helping behavior has been explained within at least four

frameworks: sociobiology, psychoanalysis, social learning, and cognitive development

(Bar-Tal, 1976; Bryan and London, 1970; Mussen and Eisenberg-Berg, 1977; Rushton,

1976; Sharabany and Bar-Tal, 1982; Staub, 1979; Wispé, 1972, 1978). The latter three

focus on development at the individual level. The sociobiological approach looks for the

biological and social conditions that promote helping behavior. This approach assumes

that helping behavior has either evolved through sociobiological evolution, or has been

developed through sociocultural evolution. The psychoanalytic approach emphasizes the

effect of early experience of the child with its parents as determinants of helping

behavior development. The experiences are subjectively interpreted with later behavior

reflecting an individual's unconscious motives. The social learning approach assumes

that helping behavior is learned via interaction with the social environment, through

reinforcement and modeling. The cognitive development approach emphasizes

transformation of cognitive structures and role-taking opportunities as determinants of

helping behavior development.

Only the latter two approaches, social learning and cognitive development, have

stimulated much research on the development of helping behavior. The social learning

approach has focused on the effect of learning conditions and mechanisms in the social

environment. The cognitive development approach has focused on the relationship

between the development of helping behavior versus cognitive, role-taking and moral

development.

Two theoretical frameworks suggest explanations why individuals help others:

the exchange approach and the normative approach. The exchange approach suggests

individual behavior maximizes rewards and minimizes costs, to obtain profitable

outcomes. Consequently, helping behavior is useful in acquiring rewards that can take

materialistic, social, or even self-reinforcing forms (Blau, 1964; Cialdini and Kendrick,

1976; Homans, 1961; Lerner, 1977; Weiss, Buchanan, Alstatt, and Lombardo, 1971).

The second framework suggests that helping behavior is regulated by social norms.

Individuals help because they conform to norms that prescribe helping. They follow

helping norms because of the external and internal pressures they exert on themselves.

Three norms have been proposed: the norm of giving which prescribes giving for its own

value (Leeds, 1963), the norm of social responsibility, which prescribes helping

dependent others (Berkowitz and Daniels, 1963) and the norm of reciprocity, which

prescribes that individuals should help those who have helped them (Gouldner, 1960).

Origins

Although the study of helping behavior has interested social and developmental

psychologists since the 1930s (e.g. Piaget, 1932), only since the 1960s has a noticeable

interest in the subject developed with theoretical propositions seeking to explain the

motivational and social factors for helping behavior. Research begins with Kohlberg's

(1958, 1969) theories addressing development of moral judgment; Gouldner's (1960)

proposition that much human behavior is based on the "norm of reciprocity"; Leed's

(1963) "norm of giving"; and Aronfreed's (1968) thoughts about conscience

development. These theorists sought answers to research questions attempting to identify

the personal characteristics of those prone to helping others, the conditions that promote

helping, and the reasons why people are indifferent to other's needs.

Berkowitz and his associates' significant work in the mid-1960s is prominent in

the development of helping behavior research (e.g., Berkowitz and Connor, 1966;

Berkowitz and Daniels, 1963, 1964; Daniels and Berkowitz, 1963; Goranson and

Berkowitz, 1966). Berkowitz and his associates investigated individuals' socially

responsible behavior toward those dependent on their assistance. John Darley and Bibb

Latane began a series of experiments investigating why bystanders refuse to help (Darley

and Latane, 1968; Latane and Darley, 1968). The apathy of 38 witnesses refusing even

minimal involvement in preventing the 1964 stabbing death of a young woman, Kitty

Genovese, slain in Kew Gardens, New York prompted their experiments. These early

works held the attention of researchers in this area. Since the late sixties social and

developmental psychologists have written extensively on helping behavior.

Breadth of Research

Since the 1970s the importance of helping behavior in social and developmental

psychology has increased as the number of textbooks containing separate chapters

addressing the subject will show (e.g., Baron and Byrne, 1977; Freedman, Sears, and

Carlsmith, 1978; Hetherington and Parke, 1975; Meyer and Dusek, 1979; Middlebrook,

1974; Schneider, 1976). Entire books on helping behavior have been published

documenting a clear trend in psychology. In 1975 a review of 530 social psychological

journal articles taken from fifteen journals for the second half of 1975 showed the

"Altruism and Helping" category ranked third with 36 articles (Capasso and Hendrick,

1976). A review in 1977 showed the "Helping" category ranked sixth among 31

categories (Richardson, Tomarelli, and Hendrick, 1978), and in 1978 the category ranked

fourth among 33 categories (Reeves, Richardson and Hendrick, 1979).

Directions and Methods of Research

Although this review provides a modest measurement of the volume of work

addressing helping behavior, it does not show the directions researchers have gone in

study of the subject. Most of the research examined has addressed situational and

personal variables influencing helping behavior. Articles in the Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Social examined the influence of

situational variables (Bryan and Test, 1967; Willis and Goethals, 1973). In the Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology several articles investigated personal variables (Latane

and Dabbs, 1975; Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, 1969), intervening factors (Aderman and

Berkowitz, 1970), the process of helping, and cultural variables. Developmental

journals, for example, Developmental Psychology and Child Development, have

published articles examining either situational or social learning conditions. Some

articles addressed cognitive developmental processes.

Examination of the journal research indicates social psychologists have studied

situational and several personal variables. Situational variables include: types of verbal

requests, prior helping, observation of helping behavior, observation of harm doing,

presence of other individuals, ambiguity of the situation, outcome of performance on a

task, size of the request, degree of the dependency of the person in need, helper's view of

the victim, perceptions of guilt by the helper, dependency of the recipient, characteristics

of the helper, and physical distance between the potential helper and the person in need.

Among the most frequently studied personal variables were age, sex, race,

socioeconomic status, nationality, birth order, social approval, mood, justice motive,

level of moral development, level of cognitive development, locus of control, and social

responsibility.

Arriving at irrefutable conclusions about helping behavior processes is difficult in

the face of contradictory results from studies examining situational and personal

variables. That individuals encounter a variety of situations evoking differing reactions

makes it hard, if not impossible, to predict helping behavior without knowing the

meaning of a situation for a specific individual, his personality, and behavior patterns.

Research findings relating to situational and personal variables appear to be inconsistent.

This clearly indicates the need for more work. This inconsistency also provides an

opportunity to contribute to the literature (Bryan and Test, 1967; Latane and Dabbs,

1975; Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin, 1969).

More consistent findings appear in studies examining the socialization process for

helping behavior and mediating factors. Socialization studies have generally found that

nurturing parents, prescriptive orientation of parents, their moral values, and the use of

induction determine whether their children adopt helping behavior. Research into the

factors that mediate helping behavior has shown that the experience of empathy and of

attention predisposes the individual to helping behavior.

Most researchers use experimental methods in their studies. Social psychologists

conduct largely experimental studies. Their colleagues in developmental psychology

conduct studies in laboratories. These researchers conduct their research in the field

using questionnaires and observation research methods to a lesser extent. In the literature

addressing empirical helping behavior, researchers have documented situations in which

the subject had an opportunity to help strangers with a single act. In laboratory

situations, they have often selected subjects that were unknown to each other. They

isolate the act of helping from a normal course of interaction with specific time

constraints. Their experiments depart from the normal lifestyles of their subjects and

take place in unfamiliar settings.

Components of the Literature

Consumer Decision Making Literature

Consumer behavior researchers have generally assumed that consumer behavior

begins with a decision process (Engel, Blackwell, and Kollat, 1978; Howard and Sheth,

1969). In his 1978 presidential address to the Association for Consumer Research,

Kassajarian shocked his colleagues with the proposition that sometimes consumers may

make no prepurchase decision (Kassajarian, 1978). Kassajarian’s proposition suggested

the general assumption of a prepurchase decision process is not as broadly applicable as

previously believed. Olshavsky and Granbois conducted a study to validate

Kassajarian’s proposition and to determine the relative frequency of purchases not

preceded by a decision process. Their review of the literature on consumer prepurchase

behavior validated the existence of a prepurchase decision process (Olshavsky and

Granbois, 1979).

When a consumer makes a prepurchase decision, two processes will determine

product choice, the process of motivation and the process of discrimination (Woods,

1960). The process of motivation, for example, will compel a person to satisfy the need

for food. The process of discrimination will govern the choice of which food or brand of

food selected. The choices a consumer makes to satisfy these processes will depend on

consumer variables and product differences. Consumer variables in the purchase and use

of products include behavior patterns established to solve some specific problem, rational

factors e.g., price and convenience, and responses to affective and symbolic appeals

(Woods, 1960, pp. 16-17). Product differences, on the other hand, sometimes involve a

consumer’s ego, thus causing the consumer to identify with the product. Still other

products depend on their sensory appeal, while others depend on the function they

perform. Studying consumer variables enables the marketer to describe the market

segment and its needs. Studying product variables simplifies product definition. A

description of both sets of variables is essential to developing a product philosophy.

(Woods, 1960, pp. 16,17,19).

There appear to be other influences affecting the consumer’s product choice

decision. These may include purchase priority patterns (Kasulis et al., 1979), word-of-

mouth advertising (O’Brien, 1971), and total life-style (Foxall, 1975). Kasulis and his

co-authors identified evidence of consumer purchase priority patterns in a study

attempting to identify consumer priorities for discretionary income. The authors

compared ownership in the purchase of twelve major household goods across data

collected over a two year period between household types. Analysis of the resulting data

showed consumers have similar priorities for their purchase of household durable goods

(Kasulis et al., 1979). O’Brien has convincingly determined word-of-mouth is more

prominent than commercial advertising in influencing a consumer’s purchase intent

(O’Brien, 1971). He reached this finding after constructing a system of individual

consumer decision-making and drawing inferences about the chain of events taking place

in the consumer’s mind. Researchers are not in consensus in determining whether social

class and purchasing characteristics influence consumer behavior. The determining

influence on consumer choice appears to be total life-style of which social class is an

important factor. Foxall reached this finding in his study partially replicating the method

and hypotheses of the Cleveland study by Rich and Jain (1968) (Foxall, 1975).

However, Foxall’s study of Newcastle homemakers produced results that contradict those

reached by Rich and Jain. Foxall suggests that sociological variables can explain much

consumer behavior. The difference between the studies is the Foxall study’s use of food

items and domestic appliances versus the Rich and Jain Study’s use of fashion. This

difference may explain the differing results (Foxall, 1975).

Foreign/Domestic Product Choice Literature

As manufacturers distribute their products to the market place, they expose

consumers to multiple product cues (Chao and Rajendran, 1993). Among the cues is the

“made-in” label identifying the goods as being of domestic or foreign manufacture. The

identification of this cue introduces the country-of-origin effect into the consumer

decision-making process. Whether consumers actually note and use this cue in a real

purchase is an issue researchers have yet to resolve. The results of their empirical studies

show that certain consumers are unaware of a product’s country-of-origin, while others

search for such information (Reierson, 1966; Hampton, 1977). Results of other studies

show that consumers use country-of-origin when product information is available

(Erickson, Johansson and Chao, 1984; Johansson, Douglas, and Nonaka, 1985) while

others minimize its significance (Han and Terpstra, 1988; Johansson, et al., 1985). Still

other studies have arrived at findings that consumers develop stereotypes of countries

and/or their products (Nagashima, 1970 and 1977; Anderson and Cunningham, 1972;

Gaedeke, 1973; White, 1979; Bilkey and Nes, 1982; Morello, 1984; Wall and Heslop,

1986) and that these impact their purchase behavior (Graham, et al., 1988). There are

studies whose authors have found the importance of country of origin is greater for some

products than for others (Gaedeke, 1973; Lillis and Narayana; 1974).

Over the last twenty-some years that researchers have investigated the effects of

country-of-origin labels on consumer decision-making, the literature they have developed

indicates the presence of two trends. One maintains the effect is minimal and transitory.

The other holds that when there is an effect, it is largely unjustified (Johansson, 1989).

With such inconsistency in the findings, it is difficult to sustain strong generalizations

about the country-of-origin effect and its impact on consumer decision-making. In spite

of this apparent inconsistency, there is a school of researchers whose studies have

identified cues and attributes having a significant impact on the consumer decision-

making process (Olson, 1977; Monroe, 1973; Olshavsky, 1985). These researchers have

recognized the importance of investigating the external cue of “country-of-origin” and

the stereotype it evokes (Haakansson and Wootz, 1975; Cateora and Hess, 1979; Cattin,

P., Jolibert, A. and Lohnes, C., 1982; Niffenegger, 1980). Their early studies

investigating the influence of this cue have confirmed the stereotype effect of the

country-of-origin cue associated with products of foreign manufacture (Nagashima, 1970

and 1977; Anderson and Cunningham, 1972, Gaedeke, 1973; White, 1979). Recent

studies have reported insignificant or significant-but-weak effects of the country-of-

origin cue on product evaluations (Johansson, Douglas and Nonaka, 1985; Hampton,

1977; and Erickson, Johannson, and Chao, 1984). Research into evaluating the impact of

the country-of-origin cue on consumer decision-making and choice, however, is

incomplete (Bilkey and Nes. 1982). Recognition of this fact has prompted one

researcher to develop a theory of how countries of origin effects operate in consumer

decision-making (Johansson, 1989). The theory integrates empirical and theoretical

notions to describe the country of origin process flow. At its focal point is the

consumer’s tendency to use a product’s made-in label. When the tendency is high, the

consumer will use the label in one of four ways. The consumer will use the label to

guess product attributes, simplify information processing, decide how he feels about the

product, or determine its social acceptability. Although the model is consistent with

existing findings, it requires empirical testing since many issues are not yet resolved.

Among these are the link between affect and country stereotype, hybrid products, and the

lack of a good operational definition.

Helping Behavior Literature

An examination of the literature addressing helping behavior shows researchers

have tested independent variables linked to characteristics involving someone who helps,

the benefactor, someone who receives, the recipient (Krebs, 1970) and the situation in

which they find themselves. They have based their testing on the assumption that

characteristics of the benefactor, the recipient, and the situation induce helping behavior.

Their examination has included four general levels of independent variables: 1)

personality traits; 2) temporary psychological; 3) social roles and demographic variables;

and 4) social norms.

Orientation to Self and Others: The Effects of Positive and Negative Feelings and Self-Awareness

The motivation of observers to help others in distress or need tends to be short-

lived. Many determinants will affect their motivation. Researchers have collected

considerable evidence to confirm that an observer’s mood, self-awareness, success and

failure are among them.

Research into the impact of mood on helping behavior has obtained results for the

study of positive feelings that are clear. Studies addressing the impact of positive

feelings on helping behavior have, with few exceptions, proved that a good mood causes

people to perceive things positively (Forgas, Bower, and Krantz, 1984; Isen, Shalker,

Clark and Karp, 1978; Teasdale and Fogarty, 1979). Consequently, people who feel

positive tend to evaluate a given helping opportunity favorably than will others

(Berkowitz and Connor, 1966; Isen, 1970; Isen and Levin, 1972; Veitch, DeWood, and

Bosko, 1977; Isen, et al., 1978). Negative feelings, on the other hand, have not been as

reliable (Cialdini, Darby, and Vincent, 1973; Kidd and Marshall, 1982). Research

findings indicate mood affects helping behavior and that the processes effected by

pleasant feelings are different from those that negative feelings effect.

Research findings addressing the effect of positive feelings on mood indicate that

happy individuals help more because doing so enables them to prolong their good mood

state (Clark and Isen, 1982; Isen and Simmonds, 1978; Manucia, Baumann, and Cialdini,

1984). According to Cunningham, Steinberg and Grev (1980) positive feelings enhance

behaviors associated with rewards. These associations are encouraged by mood-

generated ideas. As a result, cheerful people may interpret a person’s need for help

willingly. They may also be more prone toward responding to norms that prescribe

helping behavior. Conversely, negative feelings generate more complex reactions.

People feeling downcast sometimes attempt to relieve themselves of that mood by

helping others (Cialdini, et al., 1973; Kidd and Marshall, 1982). Intensely negative

feelings, however, may have the opposite effect of angering the potential donor to the

extent that he will remove himself from depressing situations (Berkowitz, 1983). Thus,

people that are downcast may respond unfavorably to another person’s request for help.

Studies of the effect of the self on the willingness to help have also produced

mixed findings. In some contexts heightened self-awareness increased the likelihood of

helping behavior and others it has had an opposite effect. This conflict may jeopardize

prospects for the self-awareness theory posited by Duval, Wicklund and their associates

(Carver and Scheier, 1981; Duval and Wicklund, 1972; Wicklund, 1975). Self-

awareness theory maintains heightened self-awareness should stimulate the motivation to

help others for a minimum of two reasons. First, the difference between planned actions

and those actions a person ought to take disturbs people that are self-conscious of

themselves. As a result, if such a person believes he should help someone in need and he

is aware of this ideal, his heightened self-awareness should motivate his living up to the

ideal’s expectations. Second, self-awareness encourages the notion that one has a great

personal responsibility for others (Duval, Duval, and Neely, 1979). Either way, self-

focused attention increases helping behavior when the need is clear and legitimate

(Gibbons and Wicklund, 1982).

Although the results of several studies (Karylowski, 1979; Gibbons and

Wicklund, 1982) contradict this analysis, their findings can be reconciled with the self-

awareness formula described above. Subjects in some studies, highly aware of

themselves, but not excessively preoccupied with their personal problems, nevertheless

tended to increase their helping behavior responses. In other studies self-focused

attention brought on by a preoccupation with self-doubt decreased helping behavior.

According to findings reported by Aderman and Berkowitz (1983), people concerned

with self-doubt resented the self-imposed pressure to help others in need. Similarly,

heightened self-concern prompted by negative thoughts about the self, will likely

minimize the chances of a receptive response to someone’s request for help (Kidd and

Marshall, 1982).

Any discussion addressing the separate effects of mood and self-awareness

presupposes the possibility that these determinants may jointly affect the motivation to

help. Consider the effect heightened self-awareness has on existing feelings (Scheier and

Carver, 1977). Someone already feeling good about himself may feel greater self-

awareness and be even more disposed towards helping behavior. Alternatively, self-

focused attention and mood might influence helping without affecting the intensity of

how one feels. This could happen in the case of a positive mood, if heightened self-

awareness and a cheerful mood were to arouse the desire to adhere to the ideal of social

responsibility. It could also take place if a negative mood. It could also happen if the

negative mood-enhanced helping proposed by Cialdini and his associates (Cialdini, et al.,

1973) were to increase helpfulness to a greater extent than would a neutral mood.

Negative mood-enhanced helping might also lower the motivation to help by preventing

people from recognizing how helping someone might improve their feelings (Berkowitz,

1987).

Research into the impact of success and failure on helping behavior has obtained

results that are clear. Previous research shows people will help others in need, if they

sense an obligation to be socially responsible (Berkowitz and Daniels, 1964). If,

however, people experience a level of frustration and failure while attempting to achieve

culturally engendered status and financial goals, will they be less inclined to help others

in distress? Berkowitz and Connor conducted an experiment and administered a

questionnaire in an attempt to answer this question. Their findings indicate that

successful people are more likely to help those whose needs are greater than their own.

They explained these findings based on the good will successful experience had produced

in their test subjects. It appears successful subjects, as a result of their heightened

motivation to help, are more willing to tolerate the psychological and financial costs of

helping others. In contrast, test subjects experiencing frustration and failure tended to

deny the dependency relation between themselves and their supervisor, the more the

supervisor actually needed their help. The high dependency appeared to arouse strong

feelings of obligation that were annoying to the frustrated test subjects. When asked to

give their first impression of their supervisor, these test subjects generally expressed a

strong dislike for this person (Berkowitz and Connor, 1966).

Exchange and Reciprocity in Behavior

Social norms have long played a prominent role within the field of social

psychology. However, the controversy associated with their precise role in explaining

and predicting human social behavior remains unsettled. Many researchers uphold their

value as a determinant of human social behavior (i.e., Berkowitz, 1972; Fishbein and

Ajzen, 1975; McKirnan, 1980; Pepitone, 1976; Sherif, 1936; Staub, 1972; Triandis,

1977). Others within the field question their contribution to psychological research (i.e.,

Darley and Latane, 1970; Krebs, 1970; Krebs and Miller, 1985; Marini, 1984). Cialdini,

Reno, and Kallgren (1990; Cialdini, Kallgren, and Reno, 1991) distinguished two types

of norms, descriptive and injunctive. Descriptive norms prescribe practical behavior for

particular social situations. Injunctive norms prescribe and motivate socially acceptable

behavior by the prospect of social sanctions. These and other researchers have suggested

helping behavior, because of the prescriptions of social norms, is regulated by three

social norms - the norm of social responsibility, the norm of giving, and the norm of

reciprocity.

The norm of social responsibility has its origin in the work of Berkowitz and his

colleagues (e.g., Berkowitz and Daniels, 1963) who note the tendency of people to help

dependent others. They attribute this tendency to the norm’s prescription that people

should help those who need help because of the benefactor belief that these others depend

on them. The perception of dependence arouses a sense of responsibility in benefactors

that prompts them to help others. This explanation of the norm appears adequate as far

as it goes, however, it fails to explain how the norm is internalized and derives its power

to motivate helping. Researchers, according to Krebs (1970), have yet to set forth a clear

explanation of such detail.

That a benefactor helps one unable to reciprocate the help he is provided suggests

the existence of situations in which Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) is

not operative. Leeds (1963) proposed that the norm of giving involves the very young,

the very old, and the sick. This norm implies giving to a needy other for its own sake

without an expectation of return, regardless of the individual’s personal circumstances, or

the social situation in which the benefactor finds him. Leeds suggests helping

opportunities are social situations containing a certain amount of leeway that she

identifies as “role or social vacuums.” Role vacuums exist where the spectrum of

possible, but not prescribed role actions include some acts that would benefit others, for

example, a teacher’s interest in students beyond their academic welfare. Social vacuums

consist of those situations where institutional means have not been provided or cannot be

mobilized immediately, e.g., emergencies. In short, the norm of giving applies in

situations where help is needed, other norms are vague, and institutionalized help is

nonexistent (Leeds, 1963). Much like the norm of responsibility, researchers in

psychology have much to explain about how the norm is internalized and derives its

power to motivate helping behavior (Krebs, 1970).

The norm of reciprocity, as posited by Gouldner, (1960), imposes, at a minimum,

two universal obligations that: people help those who have helped them, and that people

not injure those who have helped them. The value of the help, in practical terms, will

likely vary with the needs and status of the recipient, the abilities and motives of the

benefactor, and the specific circumstances involved. Because of these constraints,

benefactors have a tendency to deal with their equals as opposed to those unable to

respond in kind, i.e., children, the elderly, or those with physical or mental handicaps.

A norm such as that posited by Gouldner is necessary in social systems because

of power differences and the danger that individuals may exploit others to gain benefits

without returning them. As Gouldner states, the norm of reciprocity

thus safeguards powerful people against the temptations of their own status; it motivates and regulates reciprocity as an exchange pattern, serving to inhibit the emergence of exploitative relations which would undermine the social system and the very power arrangement which made exploitation possible (p. 174).

Gouldner points out that the norm prompts the first party to overcome any

reservations that might prevent him from benefiting a needy other. He points out that

When internalized in both parties, the norm obliges the one who has first received a benefit to repay it at some time; it thus provides some realistic ground for confidence, in the one who first parts with his valuables, that he will be repaid (p. 177).

As described by Gouldner (1960), the value of the benefit and the debt varies in

proportion to the intensity of the recipient’s need at the time the benefit is bestowed, the

resources of the original benefactor, the original benefactor’s motives, and any perceived

constraints. As a result the obligations imposed by the norm vary with the people

involved in the exchange (p. 171).

Responsibility and Helping Others in Distress

When an emergency arises, circumstances dictate bystanders take immediate

action to determine their best course of action. This was not the case in 1964 when

thirty-eight witnesses failed to intervene in an attack against a young woman stabbed to

death in a city street (Rosenthal, 1964). The unwillingness of the witnesses to attempt to

intervene in the attack prompted Latane and Darley to investigate why bystanders to such

emergencies refuse to help. They conducted a series of experiments to investigate the

level of responsibility individual bystanders and bystanders in a group would assume

when they intervene in an emergency. For the test condition involving an individual

bystander they hypothesized it is less likely that any one bystander will intervene as the

number of bystanders to an emergency increase. Their test of this hypothesis simulated a

real emergency with two precautions. First, they blocked their subjects' ability to

communicate with others and, second, the researchers would be able to determine the

speed and frequency of their subjects’ reaction. Results showed nonintervening subjects

were unable to overcome the indecision and conflict other subjects resolved. It appeared

that neither personality deficiencies, nor apathy to the situation plays a role in an

emergency. In a later experiment involving the group test condition, they predicted the

presence of other nonresponsive bystanders would influence other witnesses to interpret

the situation as less than serious. They validated their predictions and concluded that

individuals will avoid personal responsibility to assist a victim as the number of

bystanders increases (Latane and Darley, 1968).

Empathy and the Willingness to Help

Philosophers (i.e., Blum, 1980) and psychologists (i.e., Barnett, 1987; Feshback,

1978; Hoffman, 1984; Staub, 1978) have maintained that those who empathize with the

distressed state of another will likely be motivated to offer their help. The exact role of

empathy in motivating witnesses to relieve the distress or needs of another has not been

resolved as evidenced by the development of three explanations for empathy-based

responses: the empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson and Coke, 1981; Batson et al.,

1981), the negative state relief model (Cialdini, et al., 1987) and an empathic joy based

motivation (Smith, et al., 1989).

The empathy-altruism hypothesis holds that empathic concern, i.e., compassion

for another’s distress (Batson and Coke, 1981; Batson, et al., 1981), motivates helping

behavior to better a distressed persons’ well being (Batson, 1987). The experimental

approach developed by Batson and his associates seeks to determine whether helping

behavior is selflessly motivated (Batson et al., 1981; Batson et al., 1983; Toi and Batson,

1982). It proposes that a potential benefactor will respond to helping opportunities by

either offering his help or escaping the demands of the helping situation. Batson and his

associates predict the level of empathy and the ease or difficulty of escaping the situation

contribute to a benefactor's decision to help. If the potential benefactor’s level of his

empathy is low and he can accomplish escaping involvement easily, they predict he will

be motivated to minimize the cost of his personal involvement. If the level of his

empathy is high, the subject will be highly motivated to help with little regard for self,

whether escaping involvement is easy or difficult.

Cialdini and his associates have provided a different explanation for the role of

empathy as it relates to helping behavior (Cialdini et al., 1987). They explain, according

to the negative state relief model, that the motivation for helping is a benefactor’s self-

interest in relieving his own sadness, not a victim’s suffering. Literature supporting this

interpretation maintains that temporary states of sadness heighten helping behavior in

adults (Cialdini, Kendrick and Baumann, 1982; Rosenhan, Karyloski, Salovey, and

Hargis, 1981), especially when a victim’s condition causes this sadness (Thompson,

Cowan and Rosenhan, 1980). Cialdini, et al., conducted two experiments to test their

interpretation. Results of the first experiment showed heightened empathy for victims

increases personal sadness. The second experiment attempted to identify the motivation

of those who empathize with those in need as being either self-centered or selfless.

Results supported the notion that a benefactor’s self-centered interest in minimizing the

sadness a victim’s condition induces may motivate a benefactor’s helping response under

conditions of heightened empathy.

According to Smith and his associates, neither Batson’s empathy-altruism

hypothesis, nor Cialdini’s negative state relief model addresses a third prospect of

empathy-based motivation for helping behavior, an empathic joy-based motivation.

According to Smith and his co-authors, there is an empathic joy-based motivation for

helping behavior. This approach maintains that empathic concern includes sensitivity to

the emotional state of the victim and a special sense of satisfaction and relief that a

victim’s needs are met. These researchers hypothesized the expectation of satisfaction

and relief provided by a victim’s feedback to his benefactor(s) is key towards motivating

empathic witnesses to help. To test this hypothesis they created a helping situation in

which success was uncertain and feedback from the help recipient could be removed.

Experimental results were consistent with their hypothesis. It appears, as a result, that

witnesses feeling empathic concern offer help only at the prospect of receiving feedback

on the victim’s outcome. When there is no apparent prospect of hearing about a victim’s

outcome, empathic witnesses, like their non-empathic counterparts, are unlikely to

respond to victims in need of their help (Smith, et al., 1989).

Personality, the Situation, and Determinants of Helping Behavior

Inquiry into the make-up of the socially responsible personality began with a

study by Gough, McLosky and Meehl (1952). Gough, et al., discovered a pattern of test

results that Minnesota high school and college students share a

deep concern over broader ethical and moral problems, ... a strong sense of justice, with a rather high, but somewhat rigid, set of self-demands and standards ... and a strong and unflagging sense of confidence in self and in the basic rightfulness of the larger social world.

Later, in 1968, Berkowitz and Lutterman extended the inquiry to provide a better

understanding of the construct. They began with the finding reached by Berkowitz and

Daniels (1964) that suggested the highly responsible individual is one who does not

adhere to social exchange principles. He is the type of person who tends to help people

even when there is nothing to be gained. Strong internal standards of right and wrong

versus the desire for social approval guide his actions. From this starting point

Berkowitz and Lutterman characterized the socially responsible individual as being a

well-educated member of the middle class who possesses many traditional American

values. This individual tends to be greatly involved in the educational, religious and

political life of the community. He also tends to like and trust people. (Berkowitz and

Lutterman, 1968).

As research interest into the existence of the helping personality grew, other

researchers such as Staub (1974) discovered evidence of an inclination toward helping

behavior that varies across individuals. He found his test subjects responding to a series

of helping opportunities scored on several personality measures (Berkowitz and

Lutterman, 1968; Social Responsibility scale; Schwartz’ (1968) Ascription of

Responsibility scale a.k.a. Responsibility Denial scale; Rokeach (1969), Value Survey of

clean and helpful; Christie and Geis (1968), Machiavellianism scale; and Kohlberg’s

(1969) test of moral reasoning. This finding lead to his creation of a prosocial

orientation index. Rushton (1980, 1981; Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken, 1981), based

on a careful review of classic studies of moral behavior (Hartshorne and May, 1928;

Hartshorne, May, and Maller, 1929; Hartshorne, May and Shuttleworth, 1930) concluded

that “there is a ’trait’ of altruism...There is an altruistic personality...”(Rushton, 1980).

According to both Staub and Rushton, altruism is a special form of self-serving behavior

for which rewards are self-administered.

In 1986 Batson, et al., expanded study of the helping personality. He and his co-

authors sought to answer a question left unanswered by Staub and Rushton: Are helping

personality characteristics activated by an interest in serving others or avoiding shame

and guilt for not helping? They tested sixty female undergraduates in a two-session

study. In the first session, they tested subjects for personality variables contributing to a

helping personality: self-esteem, social responsibility, ascription of responsibility and

dispositional empathy claimed to reflect a helping personality. In the second session,

they confronted each subject with a chance to help. For half of the subjects tested, the

helping opportunity was structured to make escape easy, for the other half escape was

difficult.

Analysis of data correlations revealed increased helping was associated with three

personality variables: self-esteem, ascription of responsibility, and empathic concern.

The underlying motivation for each of these variables focused on self. Higher scores

were associated with increased helping when subjects anticipated being reminded of their

failure to help (difficult escape), but not when subjects did not anticipate being reminded

(easy escape). The researchers acknowledged their findings were inconclusive.

However, that all the personality variables claimed by Staub and Rushton were not

thoroughly tested did not diminish the finding that none of the personality variables

alleged to contribute to a helping personality were associated with helping motivation.

Several were affiliated with the motivation to help, but the source of the motivation itself

appeared to be self-centered. Batson, et al., therefore suggest that altruism in the

altruistic personality appears in how one defines the term. If one defines altruism as

helping in the absence of external rewards, then the correlation patterns suggest that the

self-esteem, ascription of responsibility, and empathic concern scales may reflect

altruistic dimensions of personality, not an altruistic one.

Research into the origin of helping behavior has looked beyond an interest in the

dimensions of the altruistic personality. It has also attempted to identify the existence of

a dominant orientation towards helping. In 1963 Ribal formulated a helping orientation

model that predicts the results of person-situation interactions (Ribal, 1963). According

to the model people differ in their motivation to help those in need (nurturance) and their

motivation to have others benefit self when in need (succorance). From this model, the

researchers attempted to identify their subjects’ dominant helping orientation. They

hypothesized nurturant desires strongly motivate altruists and receptive givers.

Succorant desires motivate their counterparts, selfish and inner-sustaining people.

Questionnaire results supported both hypotheses suggesting that combinations of

nurturant and succorant desires underlie the four helping orientations, as Ribal originally

hypothesized. Questionnaire results also suggested altruists are more likely to help and

volunteer more time than altruists, when they anticipate being compensated. Few selfish

persons volunteer help with or without the prospect of being rewarded.

These findings stress the importance of both the person and the situation as

factors in helping behavior. If one ignores the situation, both altruists and receptive

givers appear likely to help those in need, but more likely than selfish people to do so.

They show that situations are important in determining individual tendencies to help.

Nurturance and succorance strongly motivate receptive givers who prefer to help in

situations leading to an exchange or social rewards. Altruists are just as motivated, but

they prefer social independence and helping in situations that preclude any possibility of

social or material compensation (Romer et al., 1986).

Research into other possible determinants of helping behavior has controlled

situational variables to predispose a benefactor for a helping response. Positive

emotional states produced have involved success and the perception of competence.

Researchers have also produced negative emotional states involving failure, unintentional

harm to another and acts of transgression to examine their influence in eliciting a

benefactor’s helping response. Lastly they have analyzed cognitive states, i.e., the role of

behavioral example or modeling, reinforcement, and personality characteristics on the

willingness of their subjects to help others. When researchers have studied the

psychological states of those receiving help, they have attempted to identify the states

and situations that elicit helping behavior. They have limited their attention to the states

of dependence and interpersonal attractiveness. It is likely a recipient’s dependence has

interacted with models to effect helping response results. Helping responses may also

result from an interaction between the characteristics of benefactors and recipients versus

the characteristics of recipients alone.

Research into demographic and social role determinants of altruism has not

precisely identified benefactor or recipient attributes and/or social roles that effect the

helping behavior response. Although a benefactor or recipient shares similar attributes or

social roles such as sex, age, ordinal position, social class and nationality, the resulting

predisposition is not a guarantee that helping behavior will result. However, there are

several trends. Adult males do not tend to help dependent others as much as adult

females (Schopler, 1967; Schopler and Bateson, 1965; Schopler and Mathews, 1965). As

children mature there is a steady increase in helping behavior (Krebs, 1970). Families

that encourage helping behavior by example are more likely to raise children concerned

for the needs of others (Berkowtiz and Friedmann, 1967; Rutherford and Mussen, 1968;

Schopler, 1967). Members of the working and entrepreneurial classes appear to

reciprocate helping behavior (Berkowitz and Friedman, 1967). Finally, shared social

class, affiliation, and friendship suggest people help those like themselves (Friedricks,

1960; Feldman, 1968), those who are prestigious (Daniels and Berkowitz, 1963; Epstein

and Hornstein, 1969), and those from whom they hope to gain (Krebs, 1970).

Lastly, some researchers maintain social norms prescribe helping behavior. They

suggest helping behavior is governed by three social norms - the norm of social

responsibility (Berkowitz and Daniels, 1963), the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960),

and the norm of giving (Leeds, 1963). The norm of social responsibility dictates

providing help to those who need it because it is the proper thing to do. Gouldner

suggests the norm of reciprocity imposes an obligation to provide help equal in value to

the help rendered by others. That a benefactor helps one unable to reciprocate the help

provided suggests the operation of a norm of giving. Understanding the influence of

social norms on helping behavior appears to require further explanation, since their

internalization and conditions under which they influence helping behavior is not

completely understood (Krebs, 1970).

Helping Behavior and Cognitive Moral Development

Cognitive-developmental theory concerns itself with the structures of reasoning, or

how people think. The theory’s most controversial premise maintains the structures of

reasoning undergo several qualitative transformations in their development to the extent that

they change when they outlive a given logic. At its peak organization, the system serves as

the basis for an entirely new system that eventually subsumes. As a result, the pattern of an

individual’s thoughts can be associated with one more less dominant forms of reasoning,

and everyone can be placed at some stage in a developmental hierarchy. In developing his

theory of moral development, Lawrence Kohlberg (1969) regarded altruism as one aspect of

the many that comprise morality (Krebs, 1978). He regarded cognitive moral development

as a process of development through a maximum of six stages (See Table 2.1). In each

stage moral reasoning becomes more complex as individual thought patterns and structures

become increasingly complex. At the preconventional level (stages 1 and 2), simple

immediate consequences to the individual (i.e., punishments and rewards) form the basis of

moral judgment. Reasoning at the conventional level (stages 3 and 4) emphasizes

compliance with the roles or norms of appropriate behavior established by peers, family,

and society at large. At the principal level (stages 5 and 6), moral judgment criteria

transcend group norms as the individual becomes decreasingly egocentric and develops an

increasing strong personal commitment to self-selected universal principles.

Table 2.1 Summary of the Six Stages of Moral Development a

Stage What is “Right” and WhyLevel 1: PreconventionalStage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation

Heteronomous morality Avoiding the breaking of rules that are backed by punishment. Superior power of authority determines “right.”

Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation

Instrumental purpose and exchange

Following one’s own interest and letting others do the same. Following rules only when it is in one’s self-interest. “Right” is defined by equal exchange, a fair deal.

Level 2: ConventionalStage 3: The “good boy”- “nice girl” orientation

Mutual interpersonal expectations, relationship, and interpersonal conformity

Exhibition of stereotypical good behavior. Living up to what is expected in a person’s role. Respect for trust, loyalty, and gratitude. Belief in the Golden Rule, putting yourself in the other person’s shoes.

Stage 4: The “law and order” orientation

Social accord and system maintenance

Making a contribution to society, group, or institution. Fulfilling duties to which you have agreed. Point of view of the system is maintained. Avoid breakdown of the system.

Level 3: PostconventionalStage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation

Social contract and individual rights

Rules are upheld because they are a social contract; however, nonrelative values are upheld regardless of majority opinion. Concern for laws and duties is based on rational determination of overall utility. Welfare and rights are protected.

Stage 6: The universal ethical principle orientation

Universal ethical principles Self-chosen ethical principles determine right. Law and social duties are valid only because they are based on such principles. the individual respects the dignity of al human beings in a decision and has personal commitment to beliefs.

a (Goolsby and Hunt, 1992)

Does knowledge of a person’s stage of moral reasoning enable researchers to

predict helping behavior? It appears so. The investigators who have tested the

relationship between moral development and helping behavior have obtained positive

results. In the study Rubin and Schneider (1973) conducted, the authors attempted to

determine the existence of a direct link between a child’s egocentrism, his moral

judgment, and the amount of helping behavior he displayed. The researchers

administered cognitive measures of communicative egocentrism and moral judgment to

fifty-five 7-year olds and then provided two opportunities to display helping behavior -

donating candy to poor children and helping a younger child complete a task. Their

results indicated candy box donations to poor children was significantly related to

communicative egocentrism and moral judgment. Also the number tasks completed for

the younger child was also significantly related to egocentrism and moral judgment.

Later Rushton (1975), using a 3 x 2 x 2 factorial research design, examined the effects of

modeling and moral judgment on the donating behavior of 140 children, 7 to 11 years of

age, immediately and eight weeks later. Rushton concluded modeling and preaching

were highly effective in the immediate and follow-up study, with less support for the

relationship between moral judgment and generosity.

These findings pose a problem for the theory of cognitive moral development.

First, the tests they employed were not designed to predict behavior, nor were they

designed to measure reasoning about altruism. Lastly the tests employed were outdated

(Krebs, 1978, p. 158). These problems were partially solved with Rest’s (1979)

development of the Defining Issues Test (DIT) of moral judgment in early 1970’s. The

DIT measures Kohlberg’s stages of moral judgment using moral dilemmas from

Kohlberg’s Moral Judgment Interview (Colby and Kohlberg, 1987) and dilemmas from a

dissertation by Alan Lockwood, (1970). The DIT presents problem items, exemplifying

Kohlberg’s stages, as issues that the actor might consider in deciding what to do. Subjects

are asked to indicate which issues are the most important consideration in making a decision

by rating and ranking the items. The key idea is to use these ratings and rankings as the

basis for a score of moral judgment development (Rest, 1979).

Helping Behavior and Ethnocentrism

For some time social scientists, have considered similarity in human relationships

to be an important factor in marriage, attraction, friendship, altruism and group cohesion.

(Byrne, 1971). According to Rushton, Russell and Wells’ (1984) “genetic similarity

theory,” there may be a biological basis for ethnocentrism, the universal tendency for

people to favor their own group over others (Booth, 1979; Worchel and Cooper, 1979).

There may also be implications for the study of social behavior in small and large

groups, both national and international. In 1989, Rushton connected the theory with

altruism, suggesting that genetically similar people tend to seek one another out and

direct altruism to genetically similar individuals. Rushton (1989) points out

two sets of falsifiable propositions follow from this interpretation. First, individual differences in ideological preference are partly heritable. Second, ideological belief increases genetic fitness (sec. 9, para. 9).

Testing the second of these propositions is difficult. Eaves et al. (1989) tested the first in

a series of studies of two separate populations of twins, a London sample of 825 pairs

and an Australian sample of 3,810 pairs. Analyses of the data generated by respondents

to the Eysenck Public Opinion Inventory (Eysenck, 1954) and the Wilson-Paterson

Conservatism Scale fully supported Rushton’s first prediction to an unexpected degree

(Eysenck, 1989). In spite of this support, genetic similarity theory, according to the

commentary of several authors, requires more development. Mealey (1985) maintains

there is a missing connection between genetic similarity theory and the accepted body of

evolutionary biology. There is in addition to this, the problem that the theory, in

Gangestad’s opinion (1989), fails to explain its predictions.

That people moderate their behaviors as a function of genetic similarity may be

far-reaching. However, many studies have found that people are more likely to help

members of their own race or country than they are to help members of other races or

foreigners (See Cunningham, 1981 for a review). This concept has been successfully

applied to the study of consumer behavior (e.g., Berkman and Gilson, 1978; Markin

1974). American-made products have historically provided the frame of reference

whereby American consumers evaluated imported products, which often were considered

inferior. Though large numbers of consumers now are willing to consider foreign-made

goods as alternatives to American-made items, some consumers staunchly refuse to buy

imported products and chastise fellow consumers for doing this. They claim buying

foreign goods puts American out of work, hurts the economy, or is unpatriotic. Other

consumers are equally vocal in defending their right to buy whatever products they wish,

regardless of place of manufacture.

In 1987, Shimp and Sharma developed the CETSCALE to measure consumers’

ethnocentric tendencies toward purchasing foreign- versus American-made products.

Although more recent ethnocentrism scales were available (e.g., Chang and Ritter, 1976;

Warr, Faust, and Harrison, 1967), they were not formulated to support the study of

marketing and consumer behavior. Four separate studies support the CETSCALE’s

reliability and convergent and discriminant validity. The consumer ethnocentrism

concept and the CETSCALE can improve understanding of how consumers and

corporate buyers compare domestic with foreign-made products and how and why their

judgments may be subject to various forms of bias and error.

Summary and Conclusions: Personality, Situations, and Determinants of Helping Behavior

The preceding discussion identified independent variables linked to

characteristics involving someone who helps, the benefactor, someone who receives help,

the recipient, and the situation in which they find themselves. These variables can be

categorized as being part of four types of determinants that induce helping behavior:

personality traits, temporary psychological states, social roles and demographic variables,

and social norms.

The first type of independent variable, make-up of the socially responsible

personality, is based on the discovery of a pattern of concern about broad ethical and

moral problems. A strong sense of justice, rigid self-demands and standards, and self-

confidence reinforce this pattern. Because this pattern is widespread, altruism has been

recognized as a special form of self-serving behavior for which rewards are self-

administered. This recognition suggests that altruism, in the altruistic personality,

appears in how one defines the term. If the concept encompasses the absence of external

rewards, then self-esteem, ascription of responsibility and empathic concern scales may

reflect altruistic dimensions of personality, not an altruistic one. Personality research has

identified an orientation towards helping, suggesting altruists are more likely to help and

volunteer more time than, altruists that anticipate being compensated. This finding

stresses the importance of both the person and the situation as factors determining

individual tendencies to help.

A second class of variables affecting the motivation to help includes temporary

psychological states such as the influence of positive and negative emotions, role models,

and interaction effects between characteristics of benefactors and recipients. The level of

responsibility individuals and bystanders in a group assume when they intervene in an

emergency, the role of empathy in motivating witnesses to relieve the distress of another

in need are also among this list of determinants. An observer’s mood, self-awareness,

and degree of success should also be placed in this category.

Several trends also suggest shared social class, affiliation, and friendship

constitute the third type of independent variable that induce helping behavior. Although

a benefactor or recipient shares similar attributes or social roles such as sex, age, ordinal

position, social class and nationality, the resulting predisposition is not a guarantee that

helping behavior will result. However, there are several trends. Adult males do not tend

to help dependent others as much as adult females. As children mature there is a steady

increase in helping behavior. Families that encourage helping behavior by example are

more likely to raise children concerned for the needs of others. Members of the working

and entrepreneurial classes appear to reciprocate helping behavior. Finally, shared social

class, affiliation and friendship suggest people help those like themselves, those who are

prestigious, and those from whom they hope to gain.

Social norms are the fourth and last type of independent variable affecting the

motivation to help. Although their precise role in explaining and predicting human

social behavior remains unsettled, many researchers uphold the value of social norms as a

determinant of helping behavior. Researchers suggest three social norms -- the norm of

social responsibility, the norm of giving, and the norm of reciprocity regulate helping

behavior. Others within the field question their contribution to psychological research.

Summary of What is Known and Unknown

This chapter has examined the issue of U.S. competitiveness, product choice, and

consumer decision making in the international market place. In the field of product

choice, researchers have determined consumer decisions depend on many factors.

Among these factors is the “made-in” label identifying a manufacturer's product as being

of domestic or foreign manufacture. The identification of this cue introduces the

country-of-origin effect into the consumer decision-making process. Whether consumers

actually note and use this cue in a real purchase situation is an issue researchers have yet

to resolve. It appears country and/or product stereotypes arising from the “made-in

label” impact consumer purchase behavior for some products more than others. Research

into evaluating the impact of the country-of-origin cue on consumer decision-making and

choice, however, is incomplete as many issues are not yet resolved. Among these are the

link between affect and country stereotype, hybrid products, and the lack of a good

operational definition.

The chapter has primarily reviewed the theory of altruism. It has examined the

seminal works of its theorists, the breadth of research conducted as well as the directions

taken and methods used in answering questions raised about helping behavior. An

examination of the literature shows researchers have tested independent variables linked

to characteristics involving, at a minimum, a benefactor, a recipient of the benefactor’s

help and the situation in which they find themselves. Further examination of the

literature shows researchers have based their testing on the assumption that

characteristics of the benefactor, the recipient, and the situation induce helping behavior.

The studies documented in the literature have examined temporary psychological states,

social roles, demographic variables, social norms and personality traits. The literature

reviewed clearly produced no evidence of an application of altruism to consumer

behavior with the recipient of consumer assistance being the American worker. A study

designed to identify significant correlations between consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive

moral development, helping behavior and the purchase choice American consumers

make between products of U.S. and foreign manufacture is needed to add to the body of

helping behavior knowledge.

Contribution to the Literature

This study contributes to the helping behavior, marketing, and country-of-origin

literature by specifically addressing the information needs of American marketing

executives in the consumer goods industry. Knowledge of the consumer decision-making

process will enable these executives to identify the consumer variables and product

differences that appeal to their particular market segment and its needs. Knowledge of both

consumer variables and product differences is essential to developing a product philosophy

(Woods, 1960) and promotional campaigns that will motivate consumers to buy domestic

products (Hirsch and Milbank, 1992).

An understanding of the consumer variables and product differences by marketing

executives can have major implications for consumer product firms attempting to increase

their domestic sales volume. This is especially the case when segments of the consumer

market tend to base their purchase decisions on customized marketing appeals and

differences in product class (Woods, 1960). Such an understanding allows the consumer

product marketer to emphasize those variables he determines will be most effective in

influencing a consumer’s purchasing decision.

The preceding review of the literature on helping behavior reveals two significant

findings. First, theory driven research on helping behavior in marketing applications is

somewhat unique. Much of what is currently known comes from the few studies having

their base in theory (Federouch, 1990, Olsen, Granzin and Biswas, 1993). The limited

amount of theory based research available, therefore, does not provide an adequate base for

answering specific questions, testing specific hypotheses, or suggesting further research.

Second, only one of the many aspects of the process by which consumers decide to

respond favorably to the Buy American appeal (Ettenson, Wagner, and Gaeth, 1988) has

been studied in the marketing literature. Olsen, Granzin and Biswas studied the process of

characterizing consumer’s support for threatened workers as “helping” within the context of

the American textile industry. Although their study proposed a model designed to explain

consumers’ willingness to help these workers, considerable work remains in the

development of a model of helping behavior that can be used in other specific contexts,

such as the American automobile industry.

In summary, questions related to consumer variables and product differences

addressed by marketing executives in developing a product philosophy and marketing

communication campaigns are of interest theoretically. Such questions are also interesting

in terms of identifying the influences that will predisposition American consumers towards

helping Americans workers maintain their livelihoods.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

OverviewThis chapter details the methodology employed in the study with a description of

the research design, procedures, research questions and hypotheses. The origin and

modification of measurement scales used in the final survey instrument are provided.

The chapter additionally addresses operationalization of the variables, pilot study,

multicollinearity and reliability issues of the study. The sampling frame, and methods of

data collection and analysis are also described.

Operationalization of Variables

This study used a research design focused on identifying statistically significant

correlations between consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and/or

helping behavior, as independent variables, and the purchase choice American consumers

make between products of U.S. and foreign manufacture (Figure 3.1, A Model of

Helping Behavior Applied to Product Choice). Specifically, this study followed the

guidelines of nonexperimental research defined by Kerlinger (1986, p. 348) and the

concepts of Ex Post Facto research designs (Campbell and Stanley, 1963, p. 70) to

examine the purchase choice American consumers make between products of U.S. and

foreign manufacture. The research design compared a group which had been exposed to

an experimental variable or treatment with one which had not to determine the extent of

any correlation. As a consequence of using this procedure, there was no experimental

manipulation or control exercised over the subjects in this study.

Based on their response to specific product choice questions appearing in a self-

administered questionnaire, subjects in the population under study determined their own

group preference by self-selecting themselves into one of two groups, American consumers

who purchase automobiles of American manufacture and those who purchase automobiles

of foreign manufacture (Kerlinger, 1986, p. 350).

Consumer Ethnocentrism

(Independent Variable)

Cognitive Moral Development

(Independent Variable)

Helping Motivation

(Independent Variable)

Consumer Product Choice: Automobiles of American or Foreign Manufacture

(Dependent Variable)

Figure 3.1

A Model of Helping Behavior Applied to Product Choice

The construct of “consumer ethnocentrism” represents the beliefs held by American

consumers about the propriety of purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma,

1987, p. 280). Ethnocentric consumers regard the purchase of imported products as being

wrong. In their minds such purchases negatively impact the domestic economy, increase

unemployment, and are plainly unpatriotic. Nonethnocentric consumers evaluate foreign

products on their own merits without regard for the origin of their manufacture. Consumer

ethnocentrism, therefore, provides the individual a sense of identity, and for purposes of this

study, an understanding of what purchases are acceptable or unacceptable. This construct

was measured using a modified version of the CETSCALE (Shimp and Sharma, 1987)

(Reference Appendix A).

The independent variable of “cognitive moral development” is defined as the

progressive way in which individuals acquire, through time, an increasingly accurate

understanding of the nature of their moral obligations (Rest, 1979). Researchers (Piaget,

1965, 1970) have sufficiently researched the process of moral development to warrant

generalizing the progressive nature of moral development hypothesized by Kohlberg (1969)

across many populations and cultures (for reviews, see Blasi, 1980; Brabeck, 1984; Gibbs

and Widaman, 1982; and Snarey, 1985). Measuring cognitive moral development requires

assessing the individual’s moral reasoning process and classifying it according to the

scheme presented earlier in Table 2.1. Rest’s (1986) Defining Issues Test (Reference

Appendix B) was used to measure cognitive moral development levels of the study’s

subjects.

For purposes of this study, “helping behavior” is defined as a motivational state

with the ultimate goal of increasing another’s welfare (C. D. Batson, 1991, p. 6). Such

acts are an end in themselves, performed voluntarily and do good (Leeds, 1963).

Measuring consistent patterns to individual differences in helping behavior entails assessing

such patterns directly through self-report questionnaires as has been successfully done with

individual differences in delinquency (Rushton and Chrisjohn, 1981). Knowing a person’s

score on one item of behavior, or on self-report questionnaires, allows a better than chance

prediction of a person’s behavior in other test situations. Measurement of helping behavior

was taken using the Rushton et al. (1981) Self-Report Altruism Scale (Reference Appendix

C).

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The major research question to be answered by this study was: Are consumer

ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and helping motivation related to the purchase

choice American consumers make between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture?

Hypotheses

In general, it was hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between

consumer ethnocentrism and the American consumer’s purchase choice made between

automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture. This concept is stated in the following null

hypothesis:

H10: There is no statistically significant correlation or a negative correlation between

consumer ethnocentrism and the American consumer’s purchase choice made

between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture.

It was hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between cognitive moral

development and the American consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles

of U.S. and foreign manufacture. The null hypothesis is stated as follows:

H20: There is no statistically significant correlation or a negative correlation between

cognitive moral development and the American consumer’s purchase choice

made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture.

It was hypothesized that there is a positive relationship between helping

motivation and the American consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles of

U.S. and foreign manufacture. The null hypothesis is stated as follows:

H30: There is no statistically significant correlation or a negative correlation between

helping behavior and the American consumer’s purchase choice made between

automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture.

Sampling Method

The study population consisted of a multistage cluster sampling of households

from six suburban towns, each with a relatively homogeneous population, coming from

southwestern United States, specifically a primarily suburban metropolitan area of

approximately one million households located in Maricopa County, Arizona. Six street

intersections were randomly chosen from standard municipal maps available from local

political jurisdictions and a 40-address sampling frame was devised, based upon the 40

addresses nearest the intersection. Thus, 1,440 (6 x 6 x 40) addresses made up the

sampling frame. From this frame 18 addresses were randomly selected from each of the

previously designated 36 intersections (Greene and Plank, 1994). This resulted in 648

addresses being selected for potential survey. An analysis of the sample, undertaken to

determine its composition, appears in Chapter IV.

Measurement or Instrumentation

All information used in this analysis was derived from questionnaire data.

Subjects of the study completed a questionnaire battery containing Rest’s (1986)

Defining Issues Test (DIT), the Rushton et al. (1981) 19-item Self-Report Altruism Scale

(SRAS), a Shimp and Sharma’s 17-item CETSCALE (1987), and a measure of the

dependent variable. Questions were included to identify demographic information, such

as sex, age, ethnic origin, income and educational level.

Defining Issues Test

Subjects of this study were presented with Rest’s (1986) Defining Issues Test to

measure how subjects thought about social problems as they relate to helping American

workers. The DIT has been used in over 100 studies involving 5,000 subjects (Rest,

1976). Subjects were presented six social problems. After the presentation of each

social problem, they were asked to select a course of action and rank twelve issue

statements on a five-point scale of importance determined to be the most important in

each ethical judgment. At the end they were asked to rank order the four issue

statements believed to be the most important. The selected course of action and ranking

of issue statements were used to calculate developmental and other scores representing a

certain stage of cognitive moral development among those appearing in Table 2.1. The

primary index from the DIT used in analysis of the subject response was the P% score

representing the relative importance given to principled considerations in determining

ethical judgment. The P% score represented the percentage of total possible scores (0 to

95) assigned to statements, with higher scores indicating a higher level of CMD.

Davison and Robbins (1978), after completing a review of several studies, concluded that

test-retest reliabilities for the P% were generally in the high .70s or .80s, and the

Chronbach’s alpha index of internal consistency was generally in the high .70s (Rest,

1986).

Self-Report Altruism Scale

The Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRAS), a 20-item test developed by Rushton,

Chrisjohn and Fekken (1981) was used to assess helping behavior. This scale lists 20

everyday helping behaviors (e.g., making donations to charity, giving directions to a

stranger) and asks its respondents to rate the frequency with which one has engaged in

these helping behaviors by specifying either never, once, more than once, often or very

often. Scores can range from 20 to 100. Rushton et al., (1981) reported internal

consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the SRAS in the .78 to .87 range. Rushton

et al., (1981) assessed validity of the SRAS through correlations with (a) peer ratings of

helpfulness and (b) other measures of prosocial values. Rushton et al., (1981) found that

the scale correlated significantly with peer ratings of altruism and that it has convergent

validity when correlated with conceptually similar scales. They concluded that the SRAS

provided a more valid measure of a helping disposition than did earlier, more subjective

questionnaires.

CETSCALE

Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) CETSCALE was used to gather information about

subject tendencies related to purchasing foreign- versus American-made products. The

scale contains 17 Likert-like items relevant to consumer ethnocentrism, i.e., the beliefs

held by American consumers about the appropriateness or morality of purchasing

foreign-made products. Respondents were instructed to respond to a 5-point Likert-type

scale format addressing seven facets of consumers’ orientations toward foreign products:

(1) consumer ethnocentric tendencies, (2) price-value perceptions, (3) self-interest

concerns, (4) reciprocity norms, (5) rationalization-of-choice, (6) restrictions-mentality,

and (7) freedom-of-choice views. Shimp and Sharma (1987) assessed the reliability and

construct validity of the CETSCALE through correlations with (a) peer ratings of

helpfulness and (b) other measures of prosocial values in four separate studies. The

range of scores was from 17 to 119. Shimp and Sharma reported internal consistency

reliability (Coefficient alpha) for the CETSCALE in the .94 to .96 range. Consumer

ethnocentrism scores were calculated separately for each facet of consumer orientation so

that the impact of these scores could be assessed independently.

Measurement of the Dependent Variable

The dependent variable of consumer product choice was defined to have two

possible outcomes: Automobile of American manufacture, or Automobile of Foreign

Manufacture. Respondents were instructed to respond to a product choice problem

involving an automobile of American or Japanese manufacture. After the presentation of

the problem, respondents were asked to choose one of the two previously described

outcomes which was coded as either 0 or 1 and subjected to data analysis using logistic

regression. This dichotomy has been used by researchers in prior studies (Simonson,

1992; Bucklin and Gupta, 1992).

Instrument Pilot

The battery of measurement instruments had been administered to a panel of ten

volunteers randomly selected from a sample of students at a local university. Each pilot

study participant was provided a survey package identical to that planned for survey

respondents. The data obtained from the pilot study participants was used to test the data

analysis method.

A survey evaluation form (Appendix E), customized for use in the pilot study,

accompanied the survey package for use in obtaining participant perceptions of the

survey package. The evaluation form was enclosed in a sealed envelope marked with a

request to open only after completion of the survey. Pilot study participants were asked

to comment on the structure of the survey, its content, and the time necessary to complete

its requirements.

Frequencies and descriptive statistical analysis were computed for all questions.

A review of the data revealed no inconsistencies or anomalies. Responses were subjected

to reliability analysis for internal consistency using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences, version 6.1.3 covariance matrix analysis procedures. The alpha coefficients

were analyzed and those questions reflecting higher alpha impacts were revised. Pilot

study participant comments were also considered, and as appropriate, incorporated into

the survey questionnaire.

In addition to an alpha test, the data was subjected to a One Sample T Test to

verify the instrument identified group differences. This analysis was performed on all

questions of the survey instruments.

On completion of this activity, final adjustments were incorporated into the

survey package for use in administration of the survey.

Data Collection Procedure

The battery of measurement instruments was combined into a self-administered

questionnaire package, numbered, hand-delivered, and recovered from the multistage

sample of 648 households using a “drop and collect” technique (Brown, 1987). Delivery

and recovery of the questionnaire package was accomplished by the researcher. The

initial personal contact in delivering the questionnaire package provided an opportunity

to encourage participation and to explain the nature of the survey at length. The

questionnaire package was additionally accompanied by a cover letter (reference

Appendix E) providing instructions for the questionnaire’s completion, the rationale for

the study, and the importance of each respondent's reply. The introductory cover letter

also identified how the information would be used, provided a telephone number for those

respondents who wanted more information about the study, and assured the confidentiality

of each response. These procedures are generally consistent with those suggested by Babbie

(1992).

Data Analysis Method

Logistic regression, the standard method for regression analysis of dichotomous data

in many fields, was be used in this study. This method most reasonably reflects a model

describing the relationship between a set of independent variables and a dependent, binary

variable (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 1989). The set of independent variables in this study

consisted of the constructs: consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and

helping behavior values. The dependent, binary variable was the American consumer

choice between products manufactured in the U.S. versus those of foreign manufacture.

The odds ratio, an estimate derived from the logistic regression coefficient, provided the

foundation for interpreting all logistic regression results obtained in this analysis.

Multicollinearity and Reliability IssuesA correlation analysis was performed to analyze the strength of the relationship

between the several independent variables and the single dependent variable identified in

Figure 3.1. Performance of this analysis determined multicollinearity was not a factor

interfering with the ability of any one independent variable to explain variance in the

dependent variable. Correlation coefficients (r) generated by this analysis are detailed in

Table 3.1.

TABLE 3.1CORRELATION MATRIX

Variables

Consumer

Product

Choice

Consumer

Ethnocentrism

(CET18)

Cognitive Moral

Development

(DIT)

Helping Behavior

(ALT21)

(Y) (X) (X) (X)

Consumer Product Choice (Y) 1.0000 .3018 -.0626 .0918

Consumer Ethnocentrism

(CET18)

(X) .3018 1.0000 -.2567 -.1324

Cognitive Moral Development

(DIT)

(X) -.0626 -.2567 1.0000 .1759

Helping Behavior (ALT21) (X) .0918 -.1324 .1759 1.0000

Reliability and Bias

Consistent with the procedure suggested by Mehrens and Lehmann (l973, p. 112),

reliability of each measurement instrument was estimated using the split-half method from

one set of test data and one form of the test. A subscore for each of two halves was

obtained and the two subscores were correlated. Reliability of the whole test was estimated

using the Spearman-Brown correlation assuming the variances of the two halves were equal.

If the two halves were unequal, the estimated reliability of the whole test would be greater

than that obtained by other methods of measuring internal consistency. The test was split

into two parts (odd items vs. even items) without statistically attempting to make the two

parts equivalent. According to Mehrens and Lehmann (1973, p. 122), a reliability

coefficient of 0.65 suggests acceptable reliability. A finding that the measurement

instruments were reliable was important to increase confidence in the results of the study.

As will be discussed more fully in the next chapter, while there may be some nonresponse

bias, it was not expected to be a major factor in the results of the survey.

Summary

This chapter detailed the methodology employed in the study and described the

research design, procedures, research questions and hypotheses. It additionally

addressed operationalization of the variables, the pilot study, as well as the origin and

modification of measurement scales used in the final survey instrument. The sampling

frame, methods of data collection and analysis were also described. The chapter

concludes with the results of a multiple regression analysis and examined reliability

issues.

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This chapter details the statistical analysis conducted and presents the findings of the

study. It begins with a demographic profile of the respondents and a discussion of the

response rate. Finally, the results from data analysis and hypothesis tests will be interpreted

and discussed. The statistical package used to analyze the data was SPSS for Windows,

Release 6.1.3 (SPSS, Inc., 1995).

Demographic Profile of Respondents

Of the 212 respondents, 98 (46.2%) were male and 114 (53.8%) were female. The

average age of these individuals was 52 (range = 18 - 65+). Seventy-four percent of the

sample was married living in a household consisting of two adults. The level of education

ranged from having a high school education or less to have a postgraduate degree with the

average respondent having attended college (M = 2.9; Standard Deviation = 1.3). The

average respondent’s household income was above average approaching $50,000 per year.

Respondent households are the original owners of an average of two passenger vehicles of

domestic (U.S.) manufacture valued at less than $15,000. Households owning more than

two vehicles tended to have purchased used passenger cars of domestic manufacture again

valued at less than $15,000.

The following tables provide a demographic profile of the respondents compared

to available published 1990 demographics obtained for Maricopa County, Arizona from

which the sample was extracted. Given the profile of the sample sites, this sample

provided demographic values expected.

Table 4.1 depicts the distribution by gender of the sample obtained in response to

question 1 of the questionnaire (Appendix E). The data obtained indicates the gender

makeup roughly corresponds to that of the general population of Maricopa County.

TABLE 4.1 GENDER - SAMPLE VS. 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZSample 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

N Percent N PercentMale 98 46.2 1,044,235 49.2Female 114 53.8 1,077,866 50.8Total 212 100.0 2,122,101 100.0

Table 4.2 describes the age level of the respondents obtained in response to the eight categories

identified in question 2 of the questionnaire (Appendix E). The data obtained were used to characterize

the sample and provided a means of comparing it to the general population.

TABLE 4.2 AGE - SAMPLE VS. 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZSample 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

N Percent N Percent18 - 24 7 3.3 222,759 14.225 - 34 33 15.6 395,760 25.235 - 44 40 18.9 314,602 20.045 - 49 34 16.0 115,379 7.450 - 54 11 5.2 91,916 5.955 - 64 30 14.2 162,347 10.465 or more 57 26.9 264,650 16.9Total 212 100.0 1,567,413 100.0

Table 4.3 depicts the education level achieved by the respondents. Respondents were provided

five categories to choose from in question 3 of the questionnaire (Appendix E). The data obtained were

used to characterize the sample and provided a means of comparison. Educational levels achieved by the

sample indicate a higher educational level than that of the county’s general population.

TABLE 4.3 EDUCATION LEVEL - SAMPLE VS. 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZSample 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

N Percent N PercentHigh school or less 28 13.2 591,069 43.9Attended college 75 35.4 456,012 33.9Graduated from college 49 23.1 201,449 15.0Postgraduate study without 18 8.5 not reported not reported

degreePostgraduate degree 42 19.8 96,124 7.2Total 210 100.0 1,344,654 100.0

Table 4.4 depicts the marital status of the respondents. Respondents were given four categories

to choose from in question 4 of the questionnaire (Appendix E). The data obtained indicates a higher

percentage of married respondents and lower percentages of single and divorced respondents than the

corresponding percentages for the general population.

TABLE 4.4 MARITAL STATUS - SAMPLE VS. 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZSAMPLE 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

N PERCENT N PERCENTMarried 157 74.1 898,493 54.5Single, never married 28 13.2 411,015 24.9Divorced or separated 14 6.6 238,337 14.5Widowed 13 6.1 101,281 6.1Total 212 100.0 1,649,126 100.0

Tables 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 detail the type of vehicle(s) owned by respondents,

their acquisition, manufacture, and value at the time of purchase. Respondents were

provided six sections to complete in responding to question 5 of the questionnaire

(Appendix E).

TABLE 4.5 - VEHICLE TYPECar # 1

NCar #1Percent

Car # 2N

Car #2Percent

Car # 3N

Car #3Percent

Car # 4N

Car #4Percent

Nonexistent 0 0.0 28 13.2 154 72.6 192 90.6Passenger Car 132 62.3 81 38.2 20 9.4 8 3.8Station Wagon 6 2.8 5 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0Sports Utility Vehicle

22 10.4 27 12.7 13 6.1 2 0.9

Minivan 17 8.0 5 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0Other van 6 2.8 8 3.8 4 1.9 0 0.0Pickup truck 13 6.1 52 24.5 15 7.1 9 4.2Luxury vehicle 16 7.5 6 2.8 6 2.8 1 0.5Total 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100.0

TABLE 4.6 - VEHICLE ACQUISITIONCar # 1

NCar #1Percent

Car # 2N

Car #2Percent

Car # 3N

Car #3Percent

Car # 4N

Car #4Percent

Nonexistent 0 0.0 28 13.2 154 72.6 192 90.6Bought new 107 50.5 77 36.3 18 8.5 2 0.9Bought used 93 43.9 96 45.3 34 16.0 17 8.0Company provided 2 0.9 6 2.8 4 1.9 0 0.0Other 10 4.7 5 2.4 2 0.9 1 0.5Total 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100

TABLE 4.7 - VEHICLE MANUFACTURE

Car # 1N

Car #1Percent

Car # 2N

Car #2Percent

Car # 3N

Car #3Percent

Car # 4N

Car #4Percent

Nonexistent 0 0.0 28 13.2 154 72.6 192 90.6Domestic (U.S.) 149 70.3 119 56.1 45 21.2 9 4.2Asian 50 23.6 52 24.5 11 5.2 7 3.3European 13 6.1 13 6.1 2 0.9 4 1.9Total 212 100 212 100.0 212 99.9 212 100.0

TABLE 4.8 - PRICE PAID FOR VEHICLECar # 1

NCar #1Percent

Car # 2N

Car #2Percent

Car # 3N

Car #3Percent

Car # 4N

Car #4Percent

Unknown/Nonexistent 2 0.9 30 14.2 157 74.1 193 91.0< $15 K 99 46.8 106 50.0 38 17.9 14 6.6$15 K - $19.9 K 48 22.6 44 20.8 8 3.8 3 1.4$20 K - $29.9 K 52 24.5 28 13.2 6 2.8 2 0.9$30 K - $39.9 K 6 2.8 4 1.9 2 0.9 0 0.0$40 K - $49.9 K 5 2.4 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0Total 212 100.0 212 100.1 212 100.0 212 100.0

Table 4.9 presents the household composition of respondents. Respondents were

given four categories to choose from in question 6 of the questionnaire (Appendix E).

The data obtained indicates households largely consisted of adults with a maximum of

three children.

TABLE 4.9 - HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITIONAdults

NAdultsPercent

Children < 6 yrs.

N

Children< 6 yrs.Percent

Children6 - 12 yrs.

N

Children6 - 12 yrs.

Percent

Children13 - 17 yrs.

N

Children13 - 17 yrs. Percent

0 0 0.0 174 82.1 172 81.1 181 85.41 16 7.5 28 13.2 27 12.7 18 8.52 149 70.3 10 4.7 9 4.2 10 4.73 34 16.0 0 0.0 3 1.4 2 0.94 10 04.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.55 1 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.06 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.07 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.08 1 .5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100.0 212 100.0

Table 4.10 depicts a comparison between the total household income of the sample and that of

the general population and detail the personal income of respondents obtained in response to the eleven

categories identified in question 7 of the questionnaire (Appendix E). Despite assurances of anonymity,

some respondents chose not to provide their household and personal incomes.

TABLE 4.10 - TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME - SAMPLE VS. 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZSAMPLE 1990 MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

N PERCENT N PERCENTUnemployed 3 1.4 Unavailable Unavailable UnavailableLess than $ 15,000 51 24.1 Less than $15,000 170,810 21.1$15,000 - $ 24,999 36 17.0 $15,000 - $24,999 151,073 18.7$25,000 - $ 34,999 23 10.8 $25,000 - $34,999 135,474 16.7$35,000 - $ 49,999 40 18.9 $35,000 - $49,999 152,883 18.9$50,000 - $ 74,999 26 12.3 $50,000 - $74,999 123,511 15.3$75,000 - $ 99,999 12 5.7 $75,000 - $ 99,999 40,414 5.0$100,000 - $249,999 7 3.3 $100,000 or more 33,997 4.2$250,000 - $499,999 0 0.0 Unavailable Unavailable Unavailable$500,000 - $749,999 1 0.5 Unavailable Unavailable UnavailableUnidentified 13 6.1 Unavailable Unavailable UnavailableTotal 212 100.0 808,162 100.0

Response Rate

The study population consisted of a multistage cluster sampling of 648 households

from six suburban towns, each with a relatively homogeneous population. The towns are

located in a primarily suburban metropolitan area of approximately one million

households in southwestern United States. A total of 252 questionnaires (38.9%) were

evaluated and 212 responses were determined to be usable for a net response rate of 32.7%.

The criteria for using survey responses were completed measurement scales and

demographic data. The final response rate is considered acceptable and is consistent with

previous studies using the “drop and postal return” survey procedure. A point of

comparison, in his study of retailers in the center of Lisburn, Ireland, Brown (l987) received

a 33% response rate. Thus the response rate compares favorably to that obtained in previous

research.

Measurement Results

In this section, results of the final study are reported. The analysis of the data is

comprised of two stages. First, reliability and validity are established for each of the three

measurement instruments used in this study. Second, substantive results are presented to

describe testing of the hypotheses that address the various relationships of constructs in the

model appearing in Figure 3.1.

The first step in the analysis of the data was to determine the reliabilities and

validity of the measurement instruments used in this study. Reliability of each

measurement instrument was estimated using a calculation of the coefficient alpha and the

split-half method. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients computed using factor

analysis of the items within the Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRAS) and CETSCALE were

used to establish the discriminant validity of these measures. Although there may have

been some nonresponse bias, no measures were taken as it was not expected to be a major

factor in the results of the survey.

Self-Report Altruism Scale

The Self-Report Altruism Scale (SRAS) used in this study consists of a 20-item

questionnaire developed to measure the frequency with which subjects report engaging in

various helping behaviors. Coefficient alpha of the 20-item scale is .8518, consistent

with the .78 to .87 range for internal consistency reliability reported by Rushton et al.,

(1981). Split-half coefficients yield a correlation of .6770. Both of these coefficients

exceed the 0.65 reliability coefficient that Mehrens and Lehmann (1973, p. 122) suggest

as acceptable reliability.

The 20 items of the SRAS were also subjected to a factor analysis to assess the

discriminant validity of the measure. Estimates of the initial factors were obtained from

principal component analysis (See Appendix F-1 for the items, their loadings, and

eigenvalues). Since there were twenty statements and each was standardized to have a

variance of 1, the total variance was 20. Appendix F-1 also shows the 20 items load onto

the first five items to explain just under 56% of the total variance. The remaining 15

items together account for 44.2% of the variance. Thus a model with five factors may be

adequate to represent the data. Figure 1 (Appendix F-1), a scree plot of the total variance

associated with each factor, shows a distinct break between the slope of the large factors

and the scree. From the scree plot, it again appears that a five-factor model should be

sufficient for the sample.

This factor analysis clarifies what the SRAS measures.

Factor 1 loads heavily, i.e., the scores are greater than 0.6, on helping behavior

variables that include lending a neighbor not known too well borrow an item of some

value (ALT 14), deliberately buying “charity’ Christmas cards for a good cause

(ALT15), offering to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street (ALT18), and

offering a seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing (ALT 19). The

appearance of these scores in two “clusters” may be significant in evaluating consumer

helping behavior.

Examination of the other behavior variables comprising this factor indicates

moderate loads, i.e., scores greater than 0.3, against the helping behaviors of carrying a

stranger’s belongings (ALT9), helping a classmate one did not know too well with a

homework assignment when one’s knowledge was greater (ALT16), voluntarily looking

after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid for it (ALT17), and helping an

acquaintance to move households (ALT20).

Finally, it should be noted that several behavior variables, e.g., helping push a

stranger’s car out of a rut, giving directions to a stranger, giving money to charity (ALT1

through ALT8), and delaying an elevator to hold the door open for a stranger (ALT10

through ALT13) do not load the factor. The fact that these helping behaviors do not load

Factor 1 suggests consumers do not generally engage in the helping behaviors associated

with these variables.

Factor 2, by the same process of deduction as used above, loads highly on helping

behaviors that include pushing a stranger’s car out of a rut (ALT1), making change for a

stranger (ALT3), giving money to a stranger who needed it (ALT5), and giving a

stranger a lift in one’s car (ALT12). No clusters appear in the factor. There are

moderate loads appearing against giving directions to a stranger (ALT2), pointing out a

clerk’s error in undercharging for an item (ALT13), and offering one’s seat on a bus or

train to a stranger who was standing (ALT19). Other factor loadings can be ignored.

Factor 3 mainly loads on behaviors that include giving money to charity (ALT4),

donating goods or clothes to a charity and doing volunteer work for a charity (ALT6 and

ALT7). The factor score against deliberately buying “charity’ Christmas cards for a

good cause (ALT15) is moderate. Other factor loadings can be ignored.

Factor 4 loads heavily on allowing someone to go ahead in a lineup (ALT11).

Here again is a moderate loading of scores in a “cluster” for behaviors associated with

the behaviors of helping a classmate one did not know too well with a homework

assignment (ALT16), and voluntarily looking after a neighbor’s pet or children with

being paid for it (ALT17). The appearance of this cluster may be significant in

suggesting consumers generally engage in the helping behaviors associated with these

variables.

Factor 5 loads heavily against the behavior of donating blood (ALT8) with

moderate loading against the behaviors of helping push a stranger’s car out of a rut

(ALT1) and doing volunteer work for a charity (ALT7).

CETSCALE

The scale used to measure consumer ethnocentrism, the CETSCALE, consists of

17 items. The internal consistency reliability (Coefficient alpha) is .9534, consistent with

the .94 to .96 range reported by Shimp and Sharma, (1987) in their original scale

development study. Split-half coefficients yield a correlation of .8318. These

coefficients exceed the 0.65 reliability coefficient that Mehrens and Lehmann (1973, p.

122) again suggesting acceptable reliability.

The 17 items of the CETSCALE were also subjected to a factor analysis to assess

the discriminant validity of the measure. Estimates of the initial factors (See Appendix

F-2) for the items, their loadings, and eigenvalues) were obtained from principal

component analysis. Since there were seventeen statements and each was standardized to

have a variance of 1; the total variance was 17. Appendix F-2 also shows that over

57.7% of the total variance is attributable to the first item. The remaining 16 items

together account for 42.3% of the variance. Thus a model with two factors may be

adequate to represent the data. Figure 1 Appendix F-2), a scree plot of the total variance

associated with each factor, shows a distinct break between the slope of the first two

factors and the scree. From the scree plot, it again appears that a two-factor model

should be sufficient for the sample.

This factor analysis has clarified what the CETSCALE measures.

Factor 1 loads heavily on statements in three clusters that include “Purchasing

foreign-made products is un-American” (CET5 through CET7), “Americans should not

buy foreign products because this hurts American business and causes unemployment”

(CET10 through CET12), and “foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on

our markets” (CET14 through CET17). The appearance of these clusters may be

significant in evaluating consumer ethnocentric behavior.

Examination of the other variables comprising this factor indicates moderate

loads, i.e., scores greater than 0.3, against the statements “Only those products that are

unavailable in the U.S. should be imported” (CET2), “American products first, last, and

foremost” (CET4), “We should purchase products manufactured in American instead of

letting other countries get rich off us” (CET8), “It is always best to purchase American

products” (CET9), and “It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support American

products” (CET13).

Finally, it should be noted that two statement variables “American people should

always buy American-made products instead of imports” (CET1) and “Buy American-

made products. Keep America working” (CET3) does not load the factor.

Factor 2, by the same process of deduction as used above, loads highly on clusters

associated with statement variables such as “American people should always buy

American-made products instead of imports” (CET1 through CET4), “We should

purchase products manufacture in America instead of letting other countries get rich off

us” (CET8) and “It is always best to purchase American products” (CET9), with an

isolated pronounced loading on “It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support

American products” (CET13). Moderate loads appear in clusters against statement

variables such as “Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American” (CET5 through

CET7), “There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries

unless out of necessity” (CET10 and CET11), and “We should buy from foreign

countries only those products that we can not obtain within our own country (CET15 and

CET16). Other factor loadings can be ignored.

Defining Issues Test

The scale used to measure cognitive moral development, the Defining Issues Test

(DIT) consists of six social problems respondents are requested to read. After reading

each problem, respondents select a course of action, rank twelve issue statements

believed to be most important in determining each ethical judgment, and finally prioritize

four issue statements believed to be the most important. The DIT has been used in over

100 studies involving 5,000 subjects (Rest, 1976). The primary index most commonly

used in the analysis of subject responses is the P% score, representing the percentage of

total possible scores (0 to 95) assigned to statements, with higher scores indicating a

higher level of cognitive moral development. Davison and Robbins (1978) reported test-

retest reliabilities for the P% are generally in the high .70s or low .80s. The Chronbach’s

alpha index of internal consistency is generally in the high .70s (Rest, 1986). Because of

the DIT’s uniform nature and objective determination of indices, Rest’s DIT is

considered to be the most reliable, valid measurement instrument for studying cognitive

moral development (Goolsby and Hunt, 1992, p. 56).

Substantive Results

This section reports on the simple logistic regression analysis performed to test

the hypotheses.

Hypothesis One: The Relationship Between Consumer Ethnocentrism and American Consumer Choice

Hypothesis one proposed that there was no statistically significant correlation or

negative correlation between consumer ethnocentrism and the American consumer’s

purchase choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture. For the

212 cases analyzed using logistic regression, the -2 log likelihood statistic (a chi-square

statistic) indicated that the simple logistic regression model fit the data (model X2 =

21.169, p =.0000) (See Table 4.11 and Appendix G-1, Simple Logistic Regression of Consumer

Ethnocentrism, for more detail). The data analysis model indicates a positive, statistically significant

relationship between the predictor and the dependent variable, and does a fairly good job (better than

70% accuracy) of predicting the classification of the cases. Taken as a whole, the correlation between

consumer ethnocentrism and the American consumer’s purchase choice could be considered to be

statistically significant and positive. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.

TABLE 4.11 PARAMETER ESTIMATE - CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM

VARIABLE B S. E. WALD DF SIG R EXP(B)Consumer Ethnocentrism (CET18)

.0529 .0126 17.6018 1 .0000 .2504 1.0543

Constant -1.1730 .5094 5.3020 1 .0213

Hypothesis Two: The Relationship Between Cognitive Moral Development and American Consumer Choice

Hypothesis two proposed that there was no statistically significant correlation or

negative correlation between cognitive moral development and the American consumer’s

purchase choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture. The -2 log

likelihood statistic generated for the 212 cases in this simple logistic regression indicated

that the model did not fit the data (model X2 = .823, p =.3643) (See Table 4.12 and

Appendix G-2, Simple Logistic Regression of Cognitive Moral Development for more

detail). The data analysis indicates no statistically significant relationship between the

predictor and the dependent variable. Nevertheless, the prediction table indicates fairly

good accuracy of prediction (better than 70% accuracy). As a result, the null hypothesis

is not rejected.

TABLE 4.12 -PARAMETER ESTIMATES - COGNITIVE MORAL DEVELOPMENT

VARIABLE B S. E. WALD DF

SIG R EXP (B)

Cognitive Moral Development (DIT)

-.9718 1.0688 .8267 1 .3632 .0000

.3784

Constant 1.3299 .4226 9.9058 1 .0016

Hypothesis Three: The Relationship between Helping Behavior and American Consumer Choice

Hypothesis three posited that there was no statistically significant correlation or

negative correlation between helping behavior and the American consumer’s purchase

choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture. The -2 log

likelihood statistic indicated that the data analysis did not fit the data (model X2 = 1.796, p

= .1802) (See Table 4.13 and Appendix G-3, Simple Logistic Regression of Helping Behavior, for more

detail). The data analysis again indicates no relationship between the predictor and the dependent

variable. The prediction table, however, indicates fairly good accuracy of prediction (better than 70%

accuracy). The beta coefficient, although positive, is statistically insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis

is not rejected.

TABLE 4.13- PARAMETER ESTIMATES - HELPING BEHAVIOR

VARIABLE B S. E. WALD DF SIG R EXP (B)Helping Behavior (ALT21) .0201 .0151 1.7703 1 .1833 .0000 1.0203Constant -.2507 .9282 .0730 1 .7871

Although the results of the foregoing statistical analysis (a simple logistic

regression) have been reported and the status of the hypotheses determined, a thorough

assessment of the relationships dictated performing a multiple logistic regression of the

predictor variables against the dependent variable of consumer choice. The -2 log

likelihood statistic, thus generated, again indicated that the multiple logistic regression

model fit the data (model X2 = 25.64, p = .0000), a moderately strong relationship between the

predictor variables and the dependent variable, and a fairly good job (better than 70% accuracy) of

predicting the classification of the cases (See Appendix G-4, Multiple Logistic Regression of All

Predictor Variables, for more detail). The beta coefficients for consumer ethnocentrism and cognitive

moral development were consistent with the results reported for hypotheses one and two, however, the

coefficient for helping behavior, although positive, was now significant (.0403). This result indicated a

significant, positive relationship between consumer choice, consumer ethnocentrism and helping

behavior, and no relationship between consumer choice and cognitive moral development as indicated in

Table 4.14. It implies that both consumer ethnocentrism and helping behavior tendencies affect the

likelihood of purchasing an automobile of U.S. manufacture. This result is further strengthened by the

parameter estimates generated in a multiple logistic regression of consumer ethnocentrism and helping

behavior against consumer choice appearing in Table 4.15.

TABLE 4.14 -PARAMETER ESTIMATES - ALL PREDICTOR VARIABLESVARIABLE B S. E. WALD DF SIG R EXP

(B)Consumer Ethnocentrism (CET18) .0579 .0135 18.3206 1 .0000 .2561 1.0596Cognitive Moral Development (DIT)

.0534 1.2098 .0019 1 .9648 .0000 1.0548

Helping Behavior (ALT21) .0336 .0164 4.2046 1 .0403 -.0941 1.0341Constant -3.4393 1.2866 7.1454 1 .0075

TABLE 4.15 -PARAMETER ESTIMATES - CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM AND HELPING BEHAVIOR

VARIABLE B S. E. WALD DF SIG R EXP (B)

Consumer Ethnocentrism (CET18)

.0578 .0131 19.3654 1 .0000 .2642 1.0595

Helping Behavior (ALT21) .0336 .0162 4.2979 1 .0382 .0961 1.0342Constant -3.4198 1.2081 8.0128 1 .0046

Discussion

The statistically significant, positive correlation resulting from statistical analysis

of hypothesis one implies the American consumer with significant ethnocentric

tendencies is likely to purchase a product of U.S. manufacture. One explanation for this

result is that American consumers may scrutinize their product choice to identify its

country of origin, in addition to evaluating it on its own merit and value. For this reason,

made-in-U.S.A. labeling, promotions, and product literature identifying the United States

as the product’s source of manufacture should enable American manufacturers to

effectively appeal to an American consumer’s sense of patriotism.

This result might also be due to the sense of identity and pride the American

consumer may feel in the knowledge that the product he is about to purchase is made in

the United States. In particular, Shimp and Sharma (1987) argue that the American

consumer responding to made-in-U.S.A. labeling is more likely to make his purchase

decision on the basis of the impropriety of purchasing foreign-made products. For this

consumer, purchasing foreign-made products is a moral issue that results in the loss of

American jobs. Furthermore, foreign products and the countries they represent are

contemptible in the eyes of the highly ethnocentric consumer. Hence, the consumer

responding to made-in-U.S.A. labeling is less likely to switch to a foreign-made product.

Connotations such as these are a consideration in his product choice.

The hypothesis two result that cognitive moral development has no correlation

with American consumer purchase choice implies higher levels of cognitive moral

development have no effect on purchase choice. This indicates American consumers,

even at advanced levels of moral development, do not believe their purchase decisions

have a moral consequence. It also indicates consumers do not think to extend their moral

imperatives to their behavior in the marketplace. Another possible explanation for this

result is that marketing programs purposely avoid distinguishing one product from

another on the basis of morals. It could also mean that consumers do not recognize

moral arguments in marketing appeals. If these explanations are valid, the idea of

shaming consumers for buying foreign goods or manufacturers for sourcing labor and

materials or locating their facilities outside the United States is an ineffective marketing

approach to selling American products. It would also suggest that other variables besides

cognitive moral development are more powerful in explaining differences in a

consumer’s response.

The result of a positive, statistically insignificant beta coefficient for hypothesis

three implies that strong consumer tendencies toward helping behavior, absent other

influences, have no effect on purchase choice. This result indicates American consumers

having a strong interest in helping others do not extend that interest to those manufacturing

the products they consume. It can be explained by the emphasis marketers place on

depicting workers successfully manufacturing products or delivering services to the

American consumer. It is no wonder, under this circumstance, that consumers do not

recognize job losses and other problems in the American workplace as requiring the helping

support a purchase provides.

The last statistical analysis performed a multiple logistic regression of the predictor

variables against the dependent variable of consumer product choice. It resulted in a

significant, positive relationship between consumer ethnocentrism, helping behavior and

consumer choice and portrayed cognitive moral development as less important to consumer

product choice than originally expected. The result that the relationship between helping

behavior and consumer product choice was significant and positive in this analysis may be

due to the relatively high correlation between consumer ethnocentrism (CET18) and

consumer product choice (See Table 3.1, p. 64 for details). The absence of a significant

correlation between cognitive moral development and consumer product choice confirms

the result obtained in the statistical analysis performed for hypothesis two. It indicates

consumers either eliminate or minimize moral considerations in choosing between products

of domestic versus foreign manufacture. The results of this analysis may also imply the

American consumer with strong, combined tendencies toward ethnocentrism and helping

behavior is likely to purchase a product of American manufacture. Individuals belonging to

this class of consumers appear to have a strong sense of their American identity and may

resent the intrusion or dominance of foreign products in some U.S. market segments. It is

possible these consumers, reacting to the aggressive marketing efforts of foreign firms,

support American workers with the “help” of purchasing American-made products.

Marketing efforts to this class of consumers should appeal to patriotism and a sense of

helping the American worker. However, such appeals based on these tendencies should be

measured to ensure they are not overpowering. A note of caution is in order. It is possible

that in Maricopa County, Arizona where this study was conducted, there were simply more

sample respondents reflecting these tendencies than there are in the population at large.

Summary

“Buy American” campaigns have been, and continue to be, an important marketing

tool in counteracting the aggressive expansion efforts of international competitors in sectors

of the American economy. The present study found that marketers have enjoyed mixed

success using this tool. This result suggests the need to develop a new marketing strategy

directed toward the process by which American consumers choose between products of

U.S. and foreign manufacture. It appears few marketing executives have applied the theory

of altruism with the recipient of consumer help being the American worker. The purpose of

this study is to propose a model of helping behavior applied to product choice, to test this

model empirically, and to draw marketing implications from the findings. The proposed

model examines the relationship, if any, between the independent variables of consumer

ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development and helping behavior, and the dependent

variable of product choice as it relates to the purchase of an automobile.

The evidence indicates that consumer ethnocentrism is related to purchase choice.

Specifically, as American consumer tendencies toward ethnocentrism increase, the greater is

the likelihood that the American consumer will choose an automobile of domestic over

foreign manufacture. The evidence further suggests that tendencies toward helping

behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, by themselves, have no

correlation with purchase choice.

In summary, the study found that consumer ethnocentrism is related to purchase

choice and that separate tendencies toward helping behavior and higher levels of cognitive

moral development have no correlation with purchase choice. Further, purchase choice is

better predicted by a model using tendencies toward consumer ethnocentrism and helping

behavior.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This chapter presents the conclusions and implications that stem from the testing of

the study hypotheses and proceeds as follows. First, a review of the research problem, the

purpose of the study, and research questions of the study is presented. Second, the results of

the tests of the hypotheses will be summarized and implications of the findings will be

presented. The focus will be on the theoretical and marketing implications for executives,

and others interested in increasing the sales of consumer goods. Next, areas for further

research will be suggested. The Chapter concludes with a brief summary of the study.

Research Questions

A fundamental assumption of the study was that American marketing executives in

the consumer goods industry are increasingly under pressure to develop and execute

innovative marketing strategies. To counteract aggressive expansion efforts of their

international competitors in the American economy, some members of the marketing

profession have employed “Buy American” campaigns. It was found that some of these

campaigns backfire while others are finding some success. Further, it was found few

marketing executives have applied the theory of altruism in their “Buy American”

campaigns with the recipient of consumer help being the American worker. Thus, the

research problem was developing a marketing strategy directed toward the process by which

American consumers choose between products of U.S. and foreign manufacture. The

context in which this problem was addressed was the automobile industry.

The purpose of the study was to propose a model of helping behavior applied to

product choice, to test this model empirically, and to draw marketing implications from the

findings. The proposed model examined the relationship, if any, between the independent

variables of consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development and helping behavior,

and the dependent variable of product choice as it relates to the purchase of an automobile.

The foregoing permitted the formulation of several research questions. The major

research question to be answered by the study was: "Are consumer ethnocentrism,

cognitive moral development, and helping motivation related to the purchase choice

American consumers make between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture?"

From this question, three sub-questions were developed:

l. Is there a positive relationship between consumer ethnocentrism and the

American consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign

manufacture?

2. Is there a positive relationship between cognitive moral development and the

American consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign

manufacture?

3. Is there a positive relationship between helping motivation and the American

consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles of U.S. and foreign manufacture?

Each of the above questions was answered through the testing of the individual

hypotheses. It was determined there exists a positive relationship between consumer

ethnocentrism and the American consumer’s purchase choice made between automobiles of

U.S. and foreign manufacture. Further, it was determined that strong tendencies toward

helping behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, in and of themselves,

have no correlation with the American consumer’s purchase choice in the automotive

marketplace. Finally, a positive correlation was identified between combined tendencies

toward consumer ethnocentrism and helping behavior and purchase choice.

Theoretical Implications

This study contributes to the helping behavior, marketing, consumer decision

making and product choice literature by specifically addressing the information needs of

American marketing executives in the consumer goods industry. It does so by presenting a

theoretical, empirical, and managerial perspective for developing an altruism-based

marketing strategy. In particular, the study examines consumer choice in light of a model

of helping behavior directed toward identifying significant correlations between consumer

beliefs, motives, moral obligations, and product choice.

The study adds to these areas by empirically testing theory driven hypotheses. It is

unique in that, as discussed in the Justification and Rationale section of Chapter I, it applied

the theory of altruism to consumer behavior, an application that has been overlooked in the

marketing literature.

The basic theoretical model upon which this study was based is a model of helping

behavior. The model was developed to identify statistically significant correlations between

consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and/or helping behavior, as

independent variables, and the purchase choice American consumers make between

products of U.S. and foreign manufacture. According to the theory, helping behavior

results from an individual’s response to the social norms of giving, reciprocity, and social

responsibility, and his/her level of conscience and cognitive moral development. Thus,

helping behavior is a function of an interaction between cultural, cognitive and behavioral

determinants.

A fundamental contribution of this study was the attempt to empirically test the

usefulness of the helping behavior model. To the author's knowledge, the present study is

the only study to incorporate and test the constructs addressed. At a minimum, this study

advances understanding of the relationship of helping behavior, consumer ethnocentrism,

cognitive moral development to consumer product choice.

The present study supports the notion that similarity in human relationships is an

important factor in consumer behavior (Shimp and Sharma, 1987). Empirical support was

found for the helping behavior model and the correlation between consumer ethnocentrism

and purchase choice. Specifically, as American consumer tendencies toward ethnocentrism

increase, there is a greater likelihood that the American consumer will choose an

automobile of domestic over foreign manufacture. Further, the present study found that

tendencies toward helping behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, by

themselves, have no correlation with purchase choice. This finding has the potential of

diminishing the role played by cognitive and behavioral determinants in triggering an

individual’s helping behavior response. This potential needs to be further addressed with

collection and analysis of one or more additional data sets to validate the findings of this

study and their theoretical impact.

Lastly, the present study’s finding that consumer ethnocentrism and helping

behavior, in combination, are predictors of consumer choice lends weight to the argument

that consumer ethnocentrism should be added to the list of helping behavior determinants.

This conclusion is supported by the finding of other researchers that people are more likely

to help members of their race or country than they are to help members of other races or

foreigners (See Cunningham, 1981 for a review).

Managerial Implications

The results of this study suggest several important marketing implications for

American marketing executives, interest groups, and firms in the consumer goods industry.

The present study found that marketers have enjoyed mixed results using “Buy-American”

and “Made in America” marketing campaign strategies. This outcome suggests the need to

develop a new approach incorporating the results of this study. An understanding of the

significant findings identified by this study should enable those in the market segments most

affected by international competition - apparel and automotive - to restructure their buy-

American marketing campaign strategy. As a result they should achieve a better return on

their marketing dollars.

A major finding of the study was that as American consumer tendencies toward

consumer ethnocentrism increase, the greater is the likelihood that these consumers will

choose an automobile of domestic over foreign manufacture. This being the case, the

question arises “How do marketers identify American consumer tendencies in this

direction?” This question is answered in two parts. First, marketers should adopt

regional marketing as a means of managing marketing and sales promotions on a market-

by-market basis. Second, marketers should develop and execute an aggressive direct

marketing plan aimed at the target market and employ regular contact with current and

potential customers. Such contact should include the creation of a strong marketing

database consisting of demographic data, product/brand usage and leisure activity. Data

should also identify the newspapers and magazines read. The data collection effort

should also include regular use of Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) CETSCALE. This

measurement instrument was specifically developed to measure the strength of consumer

tendencies toward purchasing foreign- versus American-made products. The strength of

any consumer ethnocentric data trends, combined with the previously described database

elements, should narrow the focus on market segments and consumer groups at which

marketing communication programs should be directed. A possible starting point may be

the demographics of the 1996 primary victories of then presidential candidate Patrick

Buchanan. Mr. Buchanan’s views strongly supported “Made-in-America” and protectionist

themes.

An interesting finding of the study was the result that tendencies toward helping

behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, by themselves, have no

significant correlation with purchase choice. This finding has major implications for the

marketing executives. Specifically, it is vital to the success of “Buy-American” campaigns

that promotions based solely on either the help such campaigns may provide Americans

workers, or moral themes be avoided. Based on the evidence, relying on such themes may

decrease the likelihood of American consumers purchasing goods of domestic manufacture.

Last and most important was the finding of a significant, positive relationship

between consumer ethnocentrism, helping behavior and consumer choice. This finding has

major implications for the marketer. In addition to using Shimp and Sharma’s (1987)

CETSCALE, marketers should make simultaneous regular use of the Self-Report

Altruism Scale (Rushton et al., 1981). Using this measurement instrument will enable

marketers to identify and measure any consistent patterns of individual differences in

helping behavior. When used in conjunction with a marketing database, consistent

patterns in helping behavior and consumer ethnocentric data trends identified with these

tools should enable marketers to identify and retain top prospects for their products.

The American apparel and automobile industries are particularly suited to apply this

pair of measurement instruments, given the onslaught of foreign competition for share in

these U.S market segments. Since 1960 domestic textile and apparel manufacturers and

workers have struggled to compete against increasing imports, declining prices, quality and

style offered by low-wage countries. A revenue ranking based on 1995 sales reflect a

domestic industry scrambling to quicken response time, reduce cost, cut inventories,

improve fashion content and bring production in line with demand (Hasty, 1996). Results

from a 1986 national survey of consumers offer hope (Dickerson, 1986). Survey findings

indicated American women and older consumers perceive domestic textiles and apparel are

superior to their imported counterparts by a small percentage. This perception provides

domestic producers with an advantage in competing with imports. In addition, the results

indicated that women and older consumers might be better candidates for a ''Buy American''

appeal. It also appears special effort involving retail partners should be directed toward

younger population segments for a “Buy American” campaign. Retailer insights should

enable marketers to track consumer trends more effectively and to create products that

consumers will buy.

The US motor vehicle industry in the 1980s experienced fluctuating output and

employment growth brought about by fierce competition from foreign manufacturers and

highly cyclical demand. In the 1990s the Big Three automakers have contended with

heightened competition generated by transplanted foreign assembly operations. Transplants

are producing an output amounting to 1.5 million units or 15% of all cars and trucks

produced in the United States (Singleton, 1992). Although Chrysler, Ford and General

Motors have lowered their costs, improved quality and bettered labor relations, they are

calling for import quotas to reflect Japanese cars assembled in the United States. It is clear

foreign competitors are not giving up any US market share. Price competition from imports

has intensified, as the quality distinction between domestic and import cars has blurred. In

the next few years American automakers and autoworkers will be challenged to maintain

their quality and productivity gains while adjusting to new market conditions. If they can

provide reasons to buy domestic brands - quality, value, and taste, the American consumer

will respond. An appeal to American pride and values short of blatant flag-waving may

provide the needed additional incentive.

Research Implications

The present study has contributed to the voluminous work on helping behavior with

application of the construct to a marketing context. It can be meaningfully extended and

shows promise for conducting future correlational studies.

First, additional studies need to be conducted applying the model of helping

behavior used by this study in another contexts, such as the textile/apparel industry.

Applying the model in the context of another industry should determine whether the

findings of the present study are consistent across product lines or product specific. An

application of this study’s model to the purchase choice of industrial consumption should

also prove to be enlightening.

A second important task for future research would be to address substantive and

theoretical issues arising from limitations of the present study. The present study’s most

serious limitation is its nonexperimental character. Future research should account for the

potential existence of other variables and correlations. This requires use of the model’s

current predictor variables and possibly the predictors of attitude, social responsibility, and

empathy. A model of helping behavior applied to consumer choice with these and other

additions may be more complete and more useful in a descriptive and predictive sense. It is

also important to address methodological issues. Such issues would have to include the five

factors generated in a factor analysis of responses to the Self Report Altruism Scale,

improving the response rate with the use of a follow-up mailing, and incorporating an ethnic

breakdown of the sample. It would also be interesting to break the sample population down

for any response effects attributable to the nature of the product.

Third, future helping behavior research would also benefit from the use of other

potentially relevant psychographic measures. The data analysis in the present study

indicated a significant, positive relationship between consumer ethnocentrism, helping

behavior and consumer choice. These results suggest that future studies should employ a

measurement instrument for helping behavior that is more effective. Rushton et al. (1981)

recommend this based on their belief that the Self-Report Altruism Scale may be too

behavior specific, thus constraining respondents’ inferences about themselves relative to the

trait of helping behavior.

Fourth, it would also be valuable to undertake research to verify the findings of this

study. This is especially true with respect to the finding that tendencies toward helping

behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral development, by themselves, have no

correlation with purchase choice. This finding ostensibly runs counter to the social

conditions for helping behavior implied by the theory’s theoretical sources and should be

reconciled. This interest could be potentially addressed with the incorporation of

personalized moral dilemma/product choice situation to intensify the moral aspects of

product choice.

Finally, further research should be undertaken to verify the findings of this study.

Since the data set was collected in the Pacific Southwest, one or more data sets should be

collected from a population residing in a geographic area where the threat of foreign

competition has been particularly acute. Such a location would be, for example, Michigan,

where the decline in American manufacturer’s share of the domestic automobile market is

likely to exhibit the strongest ethnocentric sentiments. Other possible locations would

include centers of apparel and textile products industry employment such as those in

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Summary

The present study reviewed the literature and, on the basis of the theory of altruism,

applied a research framework for understanding the psychological basis of consumer

product choice in a global economy. It focused on identifying the correlations between

consumer ethnocentrism, cognitive moral development, and helping behavior values, as

independent variables, and the purchase choice of American consumers between product of

U.S. and foreign manufacture.

It was found that consumer ethnocentrism is clearly related to purchase choice.

Further, tendencies toward helping behavior and higher levels of cognitive moral

development, by themselves, have no correlation with purchase choice. Furthermore,

consumer ethnocentrism and helping behavior, in combination, are better predictors of

consumer choice than cognitive moral development. As a result, the American consumer

with significant ethnocentric and helping behavior tendencies is more likely to purchase a

product of domestic manufacture.

U.S. firms in the domestic markets most affected by international competition

should regionalize their marketing efforts. They should establish and maintain a customer

database making regular use of measurement instruments that include the Self-Report

Altruism Scale and the CETSCALE. These efforts should enable them to narrow their

focus on market segments and consumer groups at which marketing communications should

be directed.

This study, based on the literature in helping behavior, sought to map relationship

between three key predictor variables and consumer product choice. While much has been

learned, this relationship is far from complete. It can be meaningfully extended and

provides promise for conducting future studies.

APPENDIX A

DEFINING ISSUES TEST

INSTRUCTION BOOKLET

DIT DEFINING ISSUES TEST

University of MinnesotaCopyright, James RestAll Rights Reserved, 1979

Opinions about Social Problems

The purpose of this questionnaire is to help us understand how people think about social problems. Different people have different opinions about questions of right and wrong. There are no “right” answers to such problems in the way that math problems have right answers. We would like you to tell us what you think about several problem stories.

You will be asked to read a story from this booklet. Then you will be asked to mark your answers on a separate answer sheet. More details about how to do this will follow. But it is important that you fill in your answers on the answer sheet with a #2 pencil. Please make sure that your mark completely fills the little circle, that the mark is dark, and that any erasures that you make are completely clean.

The Identification Number at the top of the answer sheet may already be filled in when you receive your materials. If not, you will receive special instructions about how to fill in that number.

In this questionnaire you will be asked to read a story and then to place marks on the answer sheet. In order to illustrate how we would like you to do this, consider the following story:

FRANK AND THE CAR

Frank Jones has been thinking about buying a car. He is married, has two small children and earns an average income. The car he buys will be his family’s only car. It will be used mostly to get to work and drive around town, but sometimes for vacation trips also. In trying to decide what car to buy, Frank Jones realized that there were a lot of questions to consider, for instance, should he buy a larger used car or a small new car for about the same amount of money? Other questions occur to him.

We note that this is not really a social problem, but it will illustrate our instructions. After you read a story you will then turn to the answer sheet to find the section that corresponds to the story. But in this sample story, we present the questions below (along with some sample answers). Note that all your answers will be marked on the separate answer sheet.

1

First, on the answer sheet for each story you will be asked to indicate your recommendation for what a person should do. If you tend to favor one action or another (even if you are not completely sure), indicate which one. If you do not favor either action, mark the circle by “can’t decide.”

Second, read each of the items numbered 1 to 12. Think of the issue that the item is raising. If that issue is important in making a decision, one way or the other, then mark the circle by “great.” If that issue is not important or doesn’t make sense to you, mark “no.” If the issue is relevant but not critical, mark “much,” “some,” or “little” -- depending on how much importance that issue has in your opinion. You may mark several items as “great” (or any other level of importance) -- there is no fixed number of items that must be marked at any one level.

Third, after you have made your marks along the left and side of each of the 12 items, then at the bottom you will be asked to choose the item that is the most important consideration out of all the items printed there. Pick from among the items provided even if you think that none of the items are of “great” importance. Of the items that are presented there, pick one as the most important (relative to the others), then the second most important, third, and fourth most important.

SAMPLE ITEMS AND SAMPLE ANSWERS:

FRANK AND THE CAR: buy new car O can’t decide O buy used car

Great Some NoMuch Little

O O O O 1. Whether the car dealer was in the same block as where Frank lives. O O O O 2. Would a used car be more economical in the long run than a new car.O O O O 3. Whether the color was green, Frank’s favorite color.O O O O 4. Whether the cubic inch displacement was at least 200. O O O O 5. Would a large, roomy car be better than a compact car.O O O O 6. Whether the front connibilies were differential.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O

Note that in our sample response, the first item was considered irrelevant; the second item was considered a critical issue in making a decision; the third item was considered of only moderate importance; the fourth item was not clear to the person responding whether 200 was good or not, so it was marked “no”; the fifth item was also of critical importance; and the sixth item didn’t make any sense, so it was marked “no”.

Note that the most important item comes from one of the item marked on the far left hand side. In deciding between item #2 and #5, a person should reread these items, then put one of them as the most important, and the other items as second, etc.

2

Here is the first story for your consideration. Read the story and then turn to the separate answer sheet to mark your responses. After filling in the four most important items for the story, return to this booklet to read the next story. Please remember to fill in the circle completely, make dark marks, and completely erase all corrections.

HEINZ AND THE DRUG

In Europe a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together, about $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate and began to think about breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz steal the drug?

HEINZ AND THE DRUG: O Should steal O Can’t Decide O Should not stealGreat Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Whether a community’s laws are going to be upheld.O O O O O 2. Isn’t it only natural for a loving husband to care so much for his wife that

he’d steal?O O O O O 3. Is Heinz willing to risk getting shot as a burglar or going to jail for the

chance that stealing the drug might help?O O O O O 4. Whether Heinz is a professional wrestler, or has considerable influence

with professional wrestlers.O O O O O 5. Whether Heinz is stealing for himself or doing this solely to help someone

else.O O O O O 6. Whether the druggist’s rights to his invention have to be respected.O O O O O 7. Whether the essence of living is more encompassing than the termination

of dying, socially and individually.O O O O O 8. What values are going to be the basis for governing how people act

towards each other.O O O O O 9. Whether the druggist is going to be allowed to hide behind a worthless law

which only protects the rich anyhow.O O O O O 10. Whether the law in this case is getting in the way of the most basic claim

of any member of society.O O O O O 11. Whether the druggist deserves to be robbed for being so greedy and cruel.O O O O O 12. Would stealing in such a case bring about more total good for the whole

society or not.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

ESCAPE PRISONER

A man had been sentenced to prison for 10 years. After one year, however, he escaped from prison, moved to a new area of the country, and took on the name of Thompson. For eight years he worked hard, and gradually he saved enough money to buy his own business. He was fair to his customers, gave his employees top wages, and gave most of his own profit to charity. Then one day, Mrs. Jones, an old neighbor, recognized him as the man who had escaped from prison eight years before, and whom the police had been looking for. Should Mrs. Jones report Mr. Thompson to the police and have him sent back to prison?

ESCAPE PRISONER: O Should report him O Can’t Decide O Should not report himGreat Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Hasn’t Mr. Thompson been good enough for such a long time to prove he

isn’t a bad person?O O O O O 2. Every time someone escapes punishment for a crime, doesn’t that just

encourage more crime?O O O O O 3. Wouldn’t we be better off without prison and the oppression of our legal

system?O O O O O 4. Has Mr. Thompson really paid his debt to society?O O O O O 5. Would society be failing what Mr. Thompson should fairly expect?O O O O O 6. What benefits would prisons be apart from society, especially for a

charitable man?O O O O O 7. How could anyone be so cruel and heartless as to send Mr. Thompson to

prison?O O O O O 8. Would it be fair to all the prisoners who had to serve out their full

sentences if Mr. Thompson was let off?O O O O O 9. Was Mrs. Jones a good friend of Mr. Thompson?O O O O O 10. Wouldn’t it be a citizen’s duty to report an escaped criminal, regardless of

the circumstances?O O O O O 11. How would the will of the people and the public good best be served?O O O O O 12. Would going to prison do any good for Mr. Thompson or protect anybody?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

NEWSPAPERFred, a senior in high school, wanted to publish a mimeographed newspaper for students so

that he could express many of his opinions. He wanted to speak out against the use of the military in international disputes and to speak out against some of the school’s rules, like the rule forbidding boys to wear long hair.

When Fred started his newspaper, he asked his principal for permission. The principal said it would be all right if before every publication Fred would turn in all his articles for the principal’s approval. Fred agreed and turned in several articles for approval. The principal approved all of them and Fred published two issues of the paper in the next two weeks.

But the principal had not expected that Fred’s newspaper would receive so much attention. Students were so excited by the paper that they began to organize protests against the hair regulation and other school rules. Angry parents objected to Fred’s opinions. They phoned the principal telling him that the newspaper was unpatriotic and should not be published. As a result of the rising excitement, the principal ordered Fred to stop publishing. He gave as a reason that Fred’s activities were disruptive to the operation of the school. Should the principal stop the newspaper?

NEWSPAPER: O Should stop it O Can’t Decide O Should not stop itGreat Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Is the principal more responsible to students or to parents?O O O O O 2. Did the principal give his word that the newspaper could be published for a

long time, or did he just promise to approve the newspaper one issue at a time?

O O O O O 3. Would the students start protesting even more if the principal stopped the newspaper?

O O O O O 4. When the welfare of the school is threatened, does the principal have the right to give orders to students?

O O O O O 5. Does the principal have the freedom of speech to say “no” in this case?O O O O O 6. If the principal stopped the newspaper would he be preventing full

discussion of important problems?O O O O O 7. Whether the principal’s order would make Fred lose faith in the principal.O O O O O 8. Whether Fred was really loyal to his school and patriotic to his country.O O O O O 9. What effect would stopping the paper have on the student’s education in

critical thinking and judgment?O O O O O 10. Whether Fred was in any way violating the rights of others in publishing

his own opinions.O O O O O 11. Whether the principal should be influenced by some angry parents when it

is the principal that knows best what is going on in the school.O O O O O 12. Whether Fred was using the newspaper to stir up hatred and discontent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

DOCTOR’S DILEMMAA Lady was dying of cancer which could not be cured and she had only about six months to

live. She was in terrible pain, but she was so weak that a good dose of pain-killer like morphine would make her die sooner. She was delirious and almost crazy with pain, and in her calm periods, she would ask the doctor to giver her enough morphine to kill her. She said she couldn’t stand the pain and that she was going to die in a few months anyway. Should the doctor giver her an overdose of morphine that would make her die?

DOCTOR’S DILEMMA: O He should give the lady an O Can’t Decide O Should not give Great Some No overdose that will make her die the overdose

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Whether the woman’s family is in favor of giving her the overdose or not.

Great Some NoMuch Little

O O O O O 2. Is the doctor obligated by the same laws as everybody else if giving an overdose would be the same as killing her.

O O O O O 3. Whether people would be much better off without society regimenting their lives and even their deaths.

O O O O O 4. Whether the doctor could make it appear like an accident.O O O O O 5. Does the state have the right to force continued existence on those who

don’t want to live.O O O O O 6. What is the value of death prior to society’s perspective on personal values.O O O O O 7. Whether the doctor has sympathy for the woman’s suffering or cares more

about what society might think.O O O O O 8. Is helping to end another’s life ever a responsible act of cooperation.O O O O O 9. Whether only God should decide when a person’s life should end.O O O O O 10. What values the doctor has set for himself in his own personal code of

behavior.O O O O O 11. Can society afford to let everybody end their lives when they want to.O O O O O 12. Can society allow suicides or mercy killing and still protect the lives of

individuals who want to live.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

WEBSTERMr. Webster was the owner and manager of a gas station. He wanted to hire another

mechanic to help him, but good mechanics were hard to find. The only person he found seemed to be a good mechanic was Mr. Lee, but he was Chinese. While Mr. Webster himself didn’t have anything against Orientals, he was afraid to hire Mr. Lee because many of his customers did not like Orientals. His customers might take their business elsewhere if Mr. Lee was working in the gas station.

When Mr. Lee asked Mr. Webster if he could have the job, Mr. Webster said that he had already hired somebody else. But Mr. Webster really had not hired anybody, because he could not find anybody who was a good mechanic besides Mr. Lee. Should Mr. Webster have hired Mr. Lee?

WEBSTER: O Should have hired Mr. Lee O Can’t Decide O Should not have hired himGreat Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Does the owner of a business have the right to make his own business

decisions or not?O O O O O 2. Whether there is a law that forbids racial discrimination in hiring for jobs.O O O O O 3. Whether Mr. Webster is prejudiced against Orientals himself or whether he

means nothing personal in refusing the job.O O O O O 4. Whether hiring a good mechanic or paying attention to his customers’

wishes would be best for his business.O O O O O 5. What individual differences ought to be relevant in deciding how society’s

rules are filled?O O O O O 6. Whether the greedy and competitive capitalistic system ought to be

completely abandoned.

Great Some NoMuch Little

O O O O O 7. Do a majority of people in Mr. Webster’s society feel like his customers or are a majority against prejudice.

O O O O O 8. Whether hiring capable men like Mr. Lee would use talents that would otherwise be lost to society.

O O O O O 9. Would refusing the job to Mr. Lee be consistent with Mr. Webster’s own moral beliefs.

O O O O O 10. Could Mr. Webster be so hard-hearted as to refuse the job, knowing how much it means to Mr. Lee?

O O O O O 11. Whether the Christian commandment to love your fellow man applies to this case.

O O O O O 12. If someone’s in need, shouldn’t he be helped regardless of what you get back from him?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

STUDENT TAKEOVERBack in the 1960s at Harvard University there was a student group called Students for a

Democratic Society (SDS). SDS students were against the war in Vietnam, and were against the army training program (ROTC) that helped to send men to fight in Vietnam. While this was still going on, the SDS students demanded that Harvard end the army ROTC program as a university course. This would mean that Harvard students could not get army training as part of their regular course work and not get credit for it toward their degree.

Harvard professors agreed with the SDS students. The professors voted to end the ROTC program as a university course. But the President of the University took a different view. He stated that the army program should stay on campus as a course.

The SDS students felt that the President of the University was not going to pay attention to the vote of the professors, and was going to keep the ROTC program as a course on campus. The SDS students then marched to the university’s administration building and told everyone else to get out. They said they were taking over the building to force Harvard’s President to get rid of the army ROTC program on campus for credit as a course.

Were the students right to take over the administration building?

STUDENTS: O Take it over O Can’t Decide O Not take it overGreat Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 1. Are the students doing this to really help other people or are they doing it

just for kicks.O O O O O 2. Do the students have any right to take over property that doesn’t belong to

them.O O O O O 3. Do the students realize that they might be arrested and fined, and even

expelled from school.

Great Some No

Much LittleO O O O O 4. Would taking over the building in the long run benefit more people to a

greater extent. O O O O O 5. Whether the president stayed within the limits of his authority in ignoring

the faculty vote.O O O O O 6. Will the takeover anger the public and give all students a bad name.O O O O O 7. Is taking over a building consistent with principles of justice.O O O O O 8. Would allowing one student take-over encourage many other student take-

overs.O O O O O 9. Did the president bring this misunderstanding on himself by being so

unreasonable and uncooperative.O O O O O 10. Whether running the university ought to be in the hands of a few

administrators in the hands of all the people.O O O O O 11. Are the students following principles which they believe are above the law.O O O O O 12. Whether or not university decisions ought to be respected by students.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OSecond most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OThird most important item O O O O O O O O O O O OFourth most important item O O O O O O O O O O O O

Please make sure that all your marks are dark, fill the circles, and that all erasures are clean.

APPENDIX B

Self-Report Altruism Scale

Tick the category on the left that conforms to the frequency with which you have carried out the following acts.

Morethan Very

Never Once once Often oftenO O O O O 1. I have helped push a stranger’s car out of the snow (or a rut).

O O O O O 2. I have given directions to a stranger.

O O O O O 3. I have made change for a stranger.

O O O O O 4. I have given money to charity.

O O O O O 5. I have given money to a stranger who needed it (or asked me for it).

O O O O O 6. I have donated goods or clothes to a charity.

O O O O O 7. I have done volunteer work for a charity.

O O O O O 8 I have donated blood.

O O O O O 9. I have helped carry a stranger’s belongings (books, parcels, etc.).

O O O O O 10. I have delayed an elevator and held the door open for a stranger.

O O O O O 11. I have allowed someone to go ahead of me in a lineup (at Xerox machine, in the supermarket).

O O O O O 12. I have given a stranger a lift in my car.

O O O O O 13. I have pointed out a clerk’s error (in a bank, at the supermarket) in undercharging me for an item.

O O O O O 14. I have let a neighbor whom I didn’t know too well borrow an item of some value to me (e.g., a dish, tools, etc.).

O O O O O 15. I have bought ‘charity” Christmas cards deliberately because I knew it was a good cause.

O O O O O 16. I have helped a classmate who I did not know that well with a homework assignment when my knowledge was greater than his or hers.

O O O O O 17. I have before being asked, voluntarily looked after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid for it.

O O O O O 18. I have offered to help a handicapped or elderly stranger across a street.

O O O O O 19. I have offered my seat on a bus or train to a stranger who was standing.

O O O O O 20. I have helped an acquaintance to move households.

APPENDIX C

CETSCALE

NeitherStrongly agree nor Strongly Disagree disagree Agree O O O O O 1. American people should always buy American-made products

instead of imports.

O O O O O 2. Only those products that are unavailable in the U.S. should be imported.

O O O O O 3. Buy American-made products. Keep America working.

O O O O O 4. American products, first, last, and foremost.

O O O O O 5. Purchasing foreign-made products is un-American.

O O O O O 6. It is not right to purchase foreign products, because it puts Americans out of jobs.

O O O O O 7. A real American should always buy American-made products.

O O O O O 8. We should purchase products manufactured in America instead of letting other countries get rich off us.

O O O O O 9. It is always best to purchase American products.

O O O O O 10. There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless out of necessity.

O O O O O 11. Americans should not buy foreign products, because this hurts American business and causes unemployment.

O O O O O 12. Curbs should be put on all imports.

O O O O O 13. It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support American products.

O O O O O 14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets.

O O O O O 15. Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry into the U.S.

O O O O O 16. We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain within our own country.

O O O O O 17. American consumers who purchase products made in other countries are responsible for putting their fellow Americans out of work.

Please proceed to the next page.

APPENDIX D

SURVEY EVALUATION FORM

Please answer the following questions to finalize this survey:

1. How long did it take you to complete this survey?

2. Does the questionnaire appear, at first glance, as though it will be quick and easy to complete?

3. Does the first page of the questionnaire contain only easy, non-threatening questions?

4. Are the pages attached so they will not be lost or separated from one another?

5. Are all the pages clearly numbered and arranged so respondents can follow the sequence easily?

6. Does each page have a note at the bottom, directing respondents to the next page?

7. Is there a title at the beginning of the questionnaire and a note of thanks?

8. Do the sections within the questionnaire form simple steps or subtasks to be completed one at a time?

9. Does the questionnaire have ample white space, to avoid a dense cramped or cluttered appearance?

Your additional comments:

APPENDIX E

INTRODUCTORY COVER LETTER

NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITYDOCTORAL PROGRAMS

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIPFORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33315

Date

From: Raymond Hopkins1526 West St. Lucia DriveGilbert, Arizona 85234

Subject: Market Research Project

Dear Resident of Maricopa County,

Will you do us a favor? We are conducting an important survey among American consumers about their choice of product and ask you to complete the following market survey. American consumers have differing opinions about the origin of the products they select. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers to the questions being posed in this survey. We would like you to tell us what you think. Your honest impressions and opinions, whether favorable or unfavorable, are vital to the success of this survey. Please be assured your answers will be treated in complete confidence and used only in combination with those of other consumers in our sample to develop a composite picture. The number on the bottom of the last page is for our control purposes only and enables us to avoid duplication.

Please complete and return the survey in its entirety using the accompanying stamped envelope. Please do not put your name on the survey as all responses are anonymous. Should you wish further information about this survey, please contact the undersigned at the letterhead address, or telephone (602) 891-7343.

Thank you for your consideration and help.

Sincerely,

Raymond Hopkins

Imagine yourself in the following situation: One of the cars you drive is no longer suitable for your needs and wants. After considering your requirements and investigating what the market place has to offer, you are about to a purchase a new car. All other factors (price, quality, etc.) being equal, what make of vehicle would you likely select:

An American sedan such as the Ford Mustang or Chevrolet Camaro.

or

A Japanese sedan such as the Toyota Supra or Nissan 300Z.

American (U.S.)............. Japanese...................

Proceed to the next section.

Do not change your selection after completing this portion of the survey.

About you and your household (May we remind you that all answers are confidential and will be used only in combination with those of other students to form a composite picture.)

1. Are you a male or female?.......................Male......... Female..........

2. What is your age? Under 18 years............ 35 - 44........... 55 - 64 ................18 -24......................... 45 - 49........... 65 or more............25 -34......................... 50 - 54...........

3. What is the highest level of formal education you have attained to date? (Please check one box only)High school or less......... Graduated from College............................Attended College............ Postgraduate study without degree.............

Postgraduate degree...................................4. What is your marital status?

Married.......................... Divorced or separated................................Single, never married.... . Widowed...................................................

5a. In total, how many automobiles (i.e., passenger cars, station wagons, sports utility vehicles, vans and light pick-up trucks) are there in your household? Please include vehicles currently owned or personally leased by your and other members of your household and those provided to you or other household members. (Please write in number of automobiles or check the “None” box.)

Number of vehicles in household...... None..............................

Please answer Questions 5b through 5g for each automobile included in Question 5a. If more than four automobiles in Question 5a, please answer for the four automobiles acquired most recently. Record answers in the grid that appears below.

Car Car Car Carb. Type #1 #2 #3 #4

Passenger Car.................... Station wagon.................... Sports Utility Vehicle........ Minivan............................. Other Van.......................... Pick-up truck..................... Luxury vehicle...................

c. How AcquiredBought new....................... Bought used....................... Company provided............. Other (please specify)......

d. MakeDomestic (U.S.)................. Asian................................. European...........................

Car Car Car Care. Price paid #1 #2 #3 #4

Less than $15,000.............. $15,000 - 19,999..............

$20,000 -29,999................. $30,000 -39,999................. $40,000 -49,999.................

f. Did you purchase this car? Yes.............. No.................

6. How many people, including yourself, are currently living in your household (Please write in the number of people or “0” for each category.)

Adults Children 18+ 13 - 17 6 - 12 Under 6years old years years yearsold old old old

Number of peopleliving in your household(including yourself).......................

7. Please check the box that best describes your total household income in 1995, before taxes. (Please include income from yourself and all other household members from all sources.)

Less than $ 15,000............ $100,000 - $249,999.............$ 15,000 - $ 24,999............ $250,000 - $499,999.............$ 25,000 - $ 34,999............ $500,000 - $749,999.............$ 35,000 - $ 49,999............ $750,000 - $999,999.............$ 50,000 - $ 74,999............ Greater than $1,000,000........$ 75,000 - $ 99,999............

8. How much of this amount was your own individual employment income in 1995, before taxes? (Please include all income from yourself related to your employment).

Less than $ 15,000............ $100,000 - $249,999.............$ 15,000 - $ 24,999............ $250,000 - $499,999.............$ 25,000 - $ 34,999............ $500,000 - $749,999.............$ 35,000 - $ 49,999............ $750,000 - $999,999.............$ 50,000 - $ 74,999............ Greater than $1,000,000........$ 75,000 - $ 99,999............

APPENDIX F-1

FACTOR ANALYSIS - SELF-REPORT ALTRUISM SCALE

Table F1-1 Initial Statistics -Principal Component AnalysisVariable. Communality Factor Eigenvalue % Variance Cum Pct

ALT1 1.00000 1 5.54035 27.7 27.7 ALT2 1.00000 2 2.08033 10.4 38.1 ALT3 1.00000 3 1.26068 6.3 44.4 ALT4 1.00000 4 1.20948 6.0 50.5 ALT5 1.00000 5 1.07477 5.4 55.8 ALT6 1.00000 6 0.91360 4.6 60.4 ALT7 1.00000 7 0.88307 4.4 64.8 ALT8 1.00000 8 0.84627 4.2 69.0 ALT9 1.00000 9 0.73315 3.7 72.7ALT10 1.00000 10 0.70913 3.5 76.3ALT11 1.00000 11 0.69604 3.5 79.7ALT12 1.00000 12 0.61550 3.1 82.8ALT13 1.00000 13 0.58999 2.9 85.8ALT14 1.00000 14 0.54510 2.7 88.5ALT15 1.00000 15 0.47085 2.4 90.8ALT16 1.00000 16 0.44622 2.2 93.1ALT17 1.00000 17 0.39072 2.0 95.0ALT18 1.00000 18 0.37923 1.9 96.9ALT19 1.00000 19 0.33973 1.7 98.6ALT20 1.00000 20 0.27577 1.4 100.0

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 ALT1 .13224 .62139 -.07984 -.01488 .38242 ALT2 -.05478 .54124 .15990 .50386 .23664 ALT3 .17756 .65192 .01120 .14703 .17587 ALT4 .19468 .07969 .83957 .02979 -.04307 ALT5 .18424 .65338 .01588 .08825 -.28968 ALT6 .12517 -.04775 .78554 .22551 -.02640 ALT7 .08778 .07975 .62944 .14466 .32877 ALT8 .18778 .06823 .11575 .04192 .73228 ALT9 .55011 .29622 .15128 .22554 .25754ALT10 .11087 .08937 .15753 .78419 .02634ALT11 .26247 -.13190 .20212 .65389 -.02095

ALT12 .26525 .69334 .06771 -.17178 .00402ALT13 .25815 .40054 .19552 .36059 -.15780ALT14 .69161 .25354 .09041 .06178 .10783ALT15 .65951 .07923 .30404 .00705 -.25841ALT16 .44803 .13061 -.06900 .39766 .19577ALT17 .57175 .03419 .22470 .33294 -.13841ALT18 .68132 .08945 .18378 .17236 .15787ALT19 .63741 .31537 .00166 .03098 .21039ALT20 .39893 .23685 -.13310 .32482 .22502

Factor Loadings: High Moderately HighAPPENDIX F-1

(continued)

Table F1-2 Factor Transformation MatrixFactor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Factor 1 .67125 .48171 .33756 .41034 .18720Factor 2 -.00157 -.63995 .67861 .29199 -.21140Factor 3 -.56434 -.08534 -.08092 .68952 .43847Factor 4 -.45402 .49568 .63707 -.37618 .02832Factor 5 .15751 -.32472 .11458 -.35974 .85832

Factor Loadings: High Moderately High

Figure F1-1

Scree PlotTotal Variance Associated with Each Factor

F a c to r S c r e e P lo t

F a c to r N u m b e r

2 01 9

1 81 7

1 61 5

1 41 3

1 21 1

1 09

87

65

43

21

Eig

en

va

lue

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

OF THE SELF

REPORT ALTRUISM SCALE

APPENDIX F-2

FACTOR ANALYSIS - CETSCALE

Table F2-1 Initial Statistics -Principal Component AnalysisVariable. Communality Factor Eigenvalue % Variance Cum Pct CET1 1.00000 1 9.80910 57.7 57.7 CET2 1.00000 2 1.23401 7.3 65.0 CET3 1.00000 3 .87790 5.2 70.1 CET4 1.00000 4 .70731 4.2 74.3 CET5 1.00000 5 .57951 3.4 77.7 CET6 1.00000 6 .51463 3.0 80.7 CET7 1.00000 7 .44535 2.6 83.3 CET8 1.00000 8 .38789 2.3 85.6 CET9 1.00000 9 .37478 2.2 87.8CET10 1.00000 10 .35904 2.1 89.9CET11 1.00000 11 .33149 1.9 91.9CET12 1.00000 12 .29886 1.8 93.6CET13 1.00000 13 .25190 1.5 95.1CET14 1.00000 14 .24087 1.4 96.5CET15 1.00000 15 .21706 1.3 97.8CET16 1.00000 16 .19136 1.1 98.9CET17 1.00000 17 .17895 1.1 100.0

Table F2-2Final Statistics - Rotated Factor MatrixVariable Factor 1 Factor 2 CET1 .23600 .79673 CET2 .40441 .62213 CET3 .18007 .81323 CET4 .41812 .73937 CET5 .60351 .44266 CET6 .71413 .43211 CET7 .59520 .52486 CET8 .44860 .70039 CET9 .42250 .65822CET10 .80499 .30203CET11 .78081 .37436CET12 .71232 .26252CET13 .32627 .68961CET14 .71987 .23686CET15 .67575 .32410CET16 .63736 .53552CET17 .74781 .26651

Table F2-3 Factor Transformation Matrix

Factor 1 Factor 2Factor 1 .74054 .67202Factor 2 -.67202 .74054

APPENDIX F-2

(continued)

FIGURE F2-1

Scree Plot

F a c to r S c r e e P lo t

F a c to r N u m b e r

1 71 61 51 41 31 21 11 0987654321

Eig

en

va

lue

1 2

1 0

8

6

4

2

0

TOTAL VARIANCE

ASSOCIATED WITH EACH FACTOR OF THE CETSCALE

Appendix G-1

Simple Logistic Regression of Consumer Ethnocentrism

Dependent Variable Encoding:Original InternalValue Value

0 01 1

Dependent Variable. CHOICE Vehicle Make ChoiceBeginning Block Number 0. Initial Log Likelihood Function -2 Log Likelihood 248.79979* Constant is included in the model.Beginning Block Number 1. Method: EnterVariable(s) Entered on Step Number

1. CET18Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.-2 Log Likelihood 227.631Goodness of Fit 203.821

Chi-Square df SignificanceModel Chi-Square 21.169 1 .0000Improvement 21.169 1 .0000

Classification Table for CHOICEPredicted

Japanese American (U.S.)Observed J A Percent Correct Japanese J 8 50 13.79%American (U.S.) A 9 145 94.16%

Overall 72.17%

Variables in the Equation

Variable B S. E. Wald df Sig R Exp(B)CET18 .0529 .0126 17.6018 1 .0000 .2504 1.0543Constant -1.1730 .5094 5.3020 1 .0213

Appendix G-2

Simple Logistic Regression of Cognitive Moral Development

Dependent Variable Encoding:Original InternalValue Value

0 01 1

Dependent Variable. CHOICE Vehicle Make ChoiceBeginning Block Number 0. Initial Log Likelihood Function-2 Log Likelihood 248.79979* Constant is included in the model.Beginning Block Number 1. Method: EnterVariable(s) Entered on Step Number

1. DITEstimation terminated at iteration number 3 because Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.-2 Log Likelihood 247.977Goodness of Fit 211.933

Chi-Square df SignificanceModel Chi-Square .823 1 .3643Improvement .823 1 .3643

Classification Table for CHOICEPredicted

Japanese American (U.S.)Observed J A Percent Correct

Japanese J 0 58 .00% American (U.S.) A 0 154 100.00%

Overall 72.64%

Variables in the Equation

Variable B S. E. Wald df Sig R Exp (B)DIT -.9718 1.0688 .8267 1 .3632 .0000 2.6427Constant -1.3299 .4226 9.9058 1 .0016

Appendix G-3

Simple Logistic Regression of Helping Behavior

Dependent Variable Encoding:Original InternalValue Value

0 01 1

Dependent Variable. CHOICE Vehicle Make ChoiceBeginning Block Number 0. Initial Log Likelihood Function-2 Log Likelihood 248.79979* Constant is included in the model.Beginning Block Number 1. Method: EnterVariable(s) Entered on Step Number

1. ALT21Estimation terminated at iteration number 3 because Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.2 Log Likelihood 247.004Goodness of Fit 213.242

Chi-Square df SignificanceModel Chi-Square 1.796 1 .1802Improvement 1.796 1 .1802

Classification Table for CHOICEPredicted

Japanese American (U.S.)Observed J A Percent Correct Japanese J 0 58 .00%American (U.S.) A 0 154 100.00%

Overall 72.64%

Variables in the Equation

Variable B S. E. Wald df Sig R Exp (B)ALT21 .0201 .0151 1.7703 1 .1833 .0000 1.0203Constant -.2507 .9282 .0730 1 .7871

Appendix G-4

Multiple Logistic Regression of All Predictor Variables

Dependent Variable Encoding:Original InternalValue Value

0 01 1

Dependent Variable. CHOICE Vehicle Make ChoiceBeginning Block Number 0. Initial Log Likelihood Function-2 Log Likelihood 248.79979* Constant is included in the model.Beginning Block Number 1. Method: EnterVariable(s) Entered on Step Number

1. CET18DITALT21

Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.

2 Log Likelihood 223.186Goodness of Fit 207.876

Chi-Square df SignificanceModel Chi-Square 25.614 3 .0000Improvement 25.614 3 .0000

Classification Table for CHOICEPredicted

Japanese American (U.S.)Observed J A Percent Correct Japanese J 11 47 18.97%American (U.S.) A 8 146 94.81%

Overall 74.06%

Variables in the EquationVariable B S. E. Wald df Sig R Exp (B)

CET18 .0579 .0135 18.3206 1 .0000 .2561 1.0596DIT .0534 1.2098 .0019 1 .9648 .0000 1.0548ALT21 .0336 .0164 4.2046 1 .0403 .0941 1.0341Constant -3.4393 1.2866 7.1454 1 .0075

Multiple Logistic Regression of Consumer Ethnocentrism and Helping Behavior

Dependent Variable Encoding:Original InternalValue Value

0 01 1

Dependent Variable. CHOICE Vehicle Make ChoiceBeginning Block Number 0. Initial Log Likelihood Function-2 Log Likelihood 248.79979* Constant is included in the model.Beginning Block Number 1. Method: EnterVariable(s) Entered on Step Number

1. CET18ALT21

Estimation terminated at iteration number 4 because Log Likelihood decreased by less than .01 percent.

2 Log Likelihood 223.188Goodness of Fit 207.862

Chi-Square df SignificanceModel Chi-Square 25.612 2 .0000Improvement 25.612 2 .0000

Classification Table for CHOICEPredicted

Japanese American (U.S.)Observed J A Percent Correct Japanese J 11 47 18.97%American (U.S.) A 8 146 94.81%

Overall 74.06%

Variables in the EquationVariable B S. E. Wald df Sig R Exp (B)

CET18 .0578 .0131 19.3654 1 .0000 .2642 1.0595ALT21 .0336 .0162 4.2979 1 .0382 .0961 1.0342Constant -3.4198 1.2081 8.0128 1 .0046

Appendix H

Permission to Use the Defining Issues Test

REFERENCES CITED

Aderman, D. and Berkowitz, L. (1970) Observational set, empathy and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 141 - 148.

Aderman, D. and Berkowitz, L. (1983) Self-concern and the unwillingness to be helpful. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 293-301.

Anderson, Jr., W. T. and Cunningham, W. H. (1972) The socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23-31.

Aquinas, T. (1917). The summa theologica (Vol. 2, Part II). (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.) New York: Benziger Bros. (Original work produced 1270).

Aristotle (1932) The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, Trans.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Aronfreed J. (1968) Conduct and Conscience. New York: Academic Press.

Aronfreed, J. (1970) The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1971) Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Barnett, M. A. (1987) Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer (Eds.) Empathy and its development (146-162) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, R. A. and Byrne, D. (1977) Social psychology. (2nd Ed.) Boston: Allen and Bacon.

Bar-tal, D. (1976) Prosocial behavior: theory and research. New York: Halsted Press.

Batra, R. (1993) The myth of free trade. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Batson, C. D. (1987) Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly altruistic? in L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65-122. San Diego, CA Academic Press.

Batson, C. D. (1991) The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, p. 6.

Batson, C. D. and Coke, J. S. (1981) Empathy: a source of altruistic motivation for helping? In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality and developmental perspectives, 167-187, Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T. and Birch, K. (1981) Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290-302.

Batson, C. D., O’Quinn, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., and Isen, A.M. (1983) Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.

Belman, D. and Lee, T. M. (1995) International trade and the performance of U.S. labor Markets. Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., and Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60, 33-49.

Berkman, H. W. and Gilson, C.C. (1978) Consumer behavior: concepts and strategies. Encino, CA. Dickenson Publishing Co. Inc.

Berkowitz, L. (1972) Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 63-108 San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Berkowtiz, L. (1983) Aversively stimulated aggression. American Psychologist, 38, 1135-1144.

Berkowitz, L. (1987) Mood-self-awareness, and willingness to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 721-729.

Berkowitz, L. and Connor, W. H. (1966) Success, failure and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 664 - 669.

Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L. R. (1963) Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429 - 436.

Berkowitz, L, and Daniels, L. R. (1964) Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: effect of past help on the response to dependency relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 275 - 281.

Berkowitz, L. and Friedman, P. (1967) Some social class differences in helping behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 5, 217-225.

Berkowitz, L. and Lutterman, K. G. (1968) The traditional social responsibility personality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 169-185.

Bilkey, W. J. and Nes, E. (1982) Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 89-99.

Blasi, A. (1980) Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45.

Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Blum, L. A. (1980) Friendship altruism, and morality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Booth, K. (1979) Strategy and ethnocentrism. London: Croom-Helm.

Brabeck, M. (1984) Ethical characteristic of whistle blowers. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 41 -53.

Breese, K. S. (1992, February 17) Trade debate hasn’t cost sales. Automotive News, p. 82.

Briggs, Jr., V. M. (1995) Mass immigration, free trade, and the forgotten American worker. Challenge, 37-44.

Brown, S. W. (1987) Drop and collect surveys: A neglected research technique. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 5, 19 - 23.

Brown, P. (1992, February 3) Perkins: buy U.S. efforts won’t help much: Chevy will do well to maintain share. Automotive News, p. 14.

Bryan, J. H. and London, P. (1970) Altruistic behavior by children. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 200 - 211.

Bryan, J. H. and Test, M. A. (1967) Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 400-407.

Bucklin, R. E. and Gupta, S. (1992) Brand choice, purchase incidence, and segmentation: An integrated modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 201-215.

Business and workers must play by new economic rules. (1991, November) Supervision, 10.

Byrne, D. (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1975) On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103-1126.

Campbell, D. T. (1978) On the genetics of altruism and the counterhedonic components in human culture. In L. Wispé (Ed.) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles. New York: Academic Press, pp. 39-57.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally Chicago.

Capasso, D. R. and Hendrick, C. (1976) Bibliography of journal articles in social psychology: second half 1975. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 191 - 206.

Carver, C. and Scheier, M. (1981) Attention and self-regulation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cateora, P. R. and Hess, J. M. (1979) International marketing. Richard D. Irwin, Illinois.

Cattin, P., Jolibert, A. and Lohnes, C. (1982) A cross-cultural study of made-in concepts Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 131-141.

Chang, E. C. and Ritter, E. H. (1976) Ethnocentrism in black college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 89-98.

Chao, P. and Rajendran, K. N. (1993) Consumer profiles and perceptions: country-of-origin effects. International Marketing Review, 10, 22-39.

(1994, August 19) Trade gap eases, but imports rise. Chicago Tribune, Sec. p. 3. col. 4).

Christie, R. and Geis, F. (Eds.) (1968) Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J. and Kenrick, D. T. (1981) Insights from sadness: A three-step model of the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review, 1, 207-223.

Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L. and Vincent, J. E. (1973) Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C.A. and Reno, R. R. (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234.

Cialdini, R. B., Kendrick, D. T. and Baumann, D. J. (1982) Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) The development of prosocial behavior, 339-359, New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B. and Kendrick, D. T. (1976) Altruism as hedonism: a social development perspective on the relations of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907-914.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C.A. (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public place. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

Cialdini, R. B. Schaller, M. Houlihan, D., Arps, K. Fultz, J and Beaman, A. L. (1987) Empathy-based helping: is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52. 729-758.

Clark, M. S. and Isen, A. M. (1982) Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. Hastorf and A.M. Isen (Eds.) Cognitive Social Psychology New York: Elsevier.

Cohen, R. (1972) Altruism: Human, cultural, or what? Journal of Social Issues, 28, 39-57.

Colby, A. and Kohlberg, L. (1987) The measurement of moral judgment. (Vols. 1 and 2) New York: Cambridge University Press

Comte, I. A. (1875) System of positive polity (Vol. 1). London: Longmans, Green and Co. (Original work published 1851).

Crafted with Pride in U.S.A. Council, Inc. (1994) Update - effects of international trade on U.S. jobs, 43.

Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg J. and Grev, R. (1980) Wanting to and having to help: separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 181-192.

Cunningham, M. R. (1981) Sociobiology as a supplementary paradigm for social psychological research. In Review of personality and social psychology, vol. 2, (Ed.) L. Wheeler. Sage.

Daniels, L., and Berkowitz, L. (1963) Liking and response to dependency relationships, Human Relations, 16, 141-148.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377 - 383.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1970) Norms and normative behavior: field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowtiz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. (pp. 83-102) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Davison, M. And Robbins, S. (1978) The reliability and validity of objective indices of moral development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(3), 391-403.

Dickerson, K. G. (1986) Consumers rate U.S. clothes higher than imports Marketing-News, 20, 30

Dillin, J. (1992, June 5) Top retailer Wal-Mart a target of strong “buy American” push. The Christian Science Monitor, 84, 3.

Duval, S., Duval, V. H., and Neeley, R. (1979) Self-focus, felt-responsibility, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1769-1778.

Duval, S. and Wicklund, R. (1972) A theory of self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J. and Martin, N. G. (1989) Genes, culture, and personality: an empirical approach. Academic Press.

Engel, J. F, Blackwell, R. D. and Kollat, D. T. (1978) Consumer behavior. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.

Epstein, Y. M. and Hornstein, H. A. (1969) Penalty and interpersonal attraction as factors influencing the decision to help another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 272-282.

Erickson, G. M., Johannson, J. K. and Chao, P. (1984) Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: county of origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 694-699.

Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988) Evaluating the effect of country-of-origin and the ‘made in USA’ campaign: a conjoint approach. Journal of Retailing, 64, 85-100.

Eysenck, H. J. (1954) The psychology of politics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H. J. (1989) Testing one of Rushton’s predictions In Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (1994) Economic trends. July, 18.

Federouch, A. G. (1990) A conceptualization of market helpfulness: theory and measurement of consumer altruism. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990) University Microfilms No. AAI9106760.

Feldman, R. E. (1968) Response to compatriot and foreigner who seek assistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 202-214.

Feshbach, N. D. (1978) Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B. A. Maher (Ed.) Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 8, 1-47, New York: Academic Press.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H. and Krantz, S. E. (1984) The influence of mood on perceptions of social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 497-513.

Fowler, F. J. (1993) Survey Research Methods. (Second Ed.) Sage Publications.

Freedman, J. L., Sears. D. O., and Carlsmith, J. M. (1978) Social psychology. (3rd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Friedricks, R. W. (1960) Alter vs. ego: an exploratory assessment of altruism. American Sociological Review, 25, 496-508.

Foxall, G. R. (1975) Communication note social factors in consumer choice: Replication and extension. The Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 60-64.

Gaedeke, R. (1973) Consumer attitudes toward products ‘made-in developing countries Journal of Retailing, 49, 13-24.

Gangestad, S. W. (1989) Uncompelling theory, uncompelling data. In Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Gibbons, F. X. and Wicklund, R. A. (1982) Self-focused attention and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 462-474.

Gibbs, J. and Widaman, K. (1982) Social intelligence: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Goolsby, J.R. and Hunt, S. D. (1992) Cognitive moral development and marketing. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.

Goranson, R. E. and Berkowtiz, L. (1966) Reciprocity and responsibility reaction to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 227 - 232.

Gough, H. G., McLosky, H. and Meehl, P. E. (1952) A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 73-80.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161 - 178.

Graham, J. H., Shipley, D. and Krieger, N. (1988) A method for modeling consumer perceptions of country-of-origin, International Marketing Review, 5, 67-76.

Greene, R. C. and Plank, R. E. (1994) The short-form family environment scale: testing a different response format. Psychological Reports, 74, 451-464.

Haakanson, H. and Wootz, B. (1975) Supplier selection in an international environment - an experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 46-51.

Hampton, G. M. (1977) Perceived risk in buying products made abroad by American firms. Baylor Business Studies, 53-64.

Han, M. and Terpstra, V. (1988) Country of origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 234-256.

Hartshorne, H. and May, M. A. (1928) Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit. 1, New York, Macmillan,.

Hartshorne, H., May, M. A. and Maller, J. B. (1929) Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit. 2, New York: Macmillan.

Hartshorne, H., May, M. A. and Shuttleworth, F. K, (1930) Studies in the nature of character: studies in the organization of character. 3, New York, Macmillan.

Hasty, S. (1996) It was a tough year for sales. Apparel Industry Magazine, 57, 19-30

Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W. and Piliavin, J. A. (1978) Equity theory and helping relationships. In L. Wispé (Ed.) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp. 115-139). New York: Academic Press.

Hetherington, E. M. and Parke, R. D. (1975) Child development: a contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hirsch, J. S. and Milbank, D. (1992, January 28) Buy-American is easier said than done. Wall Street Journal, 219, sec. B, p. 1, 5.

Hoffman, M. L. (1984) Interaction of affect and cognition on empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, and R. B. Zajonc (Eds.) Emotions, cognition and behavior. (103-131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Homans, G. C. (1961) Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Howard, J. A., and Sheth, J. N. (1969) The theory of buyer behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hume, D. (1896) A treatise of human nature. (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1751).

Isen, A. M. (1970) Success, failure, attention and reaction to others: the warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 294-301.

Isen, A. M., and Levin P. F. (1972) Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 239-247.

Isen, A.M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., and Karp, L (1978) Affect, accessibility of material in memory and behavior: a cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1-12.

Isen, A. M. and Simmonds, S. F. (1978) The effect of feeling good on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood. Social Psychology, 41, 346-349.

Johansson, J. K (1989) Determinants and effects of the use of “made in” labels. International Marketing Review, 6, 47-58.

Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P. and Nonaka, I. (1985) Assessing the impact of country-of- origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 388-394.

Jones, R. and D. Teece (1987) Research agenda on competitiveness: a program of research for the nation’s business schools, international business working paper. No. IB-7 Berkeley Business School, Berkeley, CA.

Karylowski, J. (1979) Self-focused attention, prosocial norms and prosocial behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 10, 57-66.

Kassajarian, H. (1978) Presidential address 1977: anthropomorphism and parsimony. In Advances in Consumer Research, 5, Ed. H. Keith Hunt. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. xii-xiv.

Kasulis, Jack J., Lusch, R. F and Stafford, Jr., E. F. (1979) Consumer acquisition patterns for durable goods. The Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 47-57.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral Research. (3rd Ed.) Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Kidd, R. F. and Marshall, L (1982) Self-reflection, mood, and helpful behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 319-334.

Kohlberg, L (1958) The development of modes of moral thinking in the years ten to sixteen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally Part I, No. 6, 347.

Krebs, D. L. (1970) Altruism-an examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 258-302.

Krebs, D. (1978) A cognitive-developmental approach to altruism. In Wispé, L. Altruism, sympathy, and helping. Academic Press, pp. 141-162.

Krebs, D. L. and Miller, D. T. (1985) Altruism and aggression. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.) The handbook of social psychology. (3rd ed., 2, 1-71) New York: Random House.

Latane, B. and Dabbs, J. M. (1975) Sex, group size and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38, 180 - 194.

Latane, B. and Darley, J. M (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215 - 221.

Lawrence, R. Z. (1984) Can America compete? Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Leeds, R. (1963) Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 229 -240.

Lerner, M. J. (1977) The justice motive: some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1 - 53.

Lillis, C .M. and Narayana, C. (1974) Analysis of made in product images- an exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 5, 119-127.

Lockwood, A. (1970) Relations of political and moral thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

Luttwak, E. (1993) The endangered American dream: How to stop the United States from becoming a third world country and how to win the geo-economic struggle for economic supremacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Manucia, G. K. Baumann, D. J. and Cialdini, R. B. (1984) Mood influences on helping: direct effects or side effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 357-364.

Markin, R. J. (1974) Consumer behavior: a cognitive orientation. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Marini, M. M. (1984) Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood. Social Forces, 63, 229-244.

McKirnan, D. J. (1980) The conceptualization of deviance: A conceptualization and initial test of a model of social norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 79-93.

Mealey, L. (1985) Comment on genetic similarity theory. Behavior Genetics, 15, 571-574.

Mehrens, W. A. and Lehmann, I. J. (1973) Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Meyer, W., and Dusek, J. B. (1979) Child development: A developmental perspective. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. D. Heath.

Middlebrook, P.N. (1974) Social psychology and modern life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Midlarsky, E. (1968) Aiding responses: An analysis and review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, 229-260.

Modic, S. J. (1990) Reader survey shows: Imports still stir emotions. Purchasing World, 25-26.

Monroe, D. B. (1973) Buyer’s subjective perceptions of pride. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70-80.

Morello, G. (1984) The made-in issue: A comparative research on the images of domestic and foreign products. European Research, January, 5-21.

Mussen, P. H. and Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1977) Roots of caring, sharing and helping. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Nagashima, A. (1970) A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34, 68-74.

Nagashima, A. (1977) A comparison made in product image survey among Japanese businessmen. Journal of Marketing, 41, 95-100.

Niffeneger, P. B. (1980) How imports rate in comparison to domestic products: A retailer survey. In Summner, J. H. and Tayler, R. D. (Eds.) Evolving Marketing Thought for 1980. Southern Marketing Association, USA.

O’Brien, T. V. (1971) Tracking consumer decision making. The Journal of Marketing, 35, 34-40.

Olsen, J. E., Granzin, K. L. and Biswas, A. (1993) Influencing consumers’ selection of domestic versus imported products: implications for marketing based on a model of helping behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 307-321.

Olson, J. C. (1977) Price as an information cue: effects on product evaluation. In Woodside, A. G., Sheth, J. N and Bennet, P. D. (Eds.) Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior North Holland, New York, 267-286.

Olshavsky, R. W. and D. H. Granbois (1979) Consumer decision making - fact or fiction. The Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93-100.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1985) Perceived quality in consumer decision making: An integrated theoretical perspective. In Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. C. (Eds.) Consumer Perception of Merchandise and Store Quality Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass, 3-30.

Pepitone, A. (1976) Toward a normative and comparative biocultural social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 641-653.

Piaget, J. (1932) The moral development of the child. Long: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1965) The Moral Judgment of a Child. (M. Gabain, translator) New York: The Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1970) Structuralism. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Piliavin, I, Rodin, J. and Piliavin, J. (1969) Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289 - 299.

Poindexter, J. T. (1993) Labor and economic trends: effect on U.S. workforce Review of Business, 15, 34-37.

Porter, M. (1991) The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Progress made but concerns abound over U.S. competitiveness. Industrial Engineering (1994, Sept.), 26, p. 8.

Reeves, R. A., Richardson, D. C., and Hendrick, C. (1979) Bibliography of journal articles in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 524 - 542.

Reierson, C. (1966) Are foreign products seen as national stereotypes? Journal of Retailing, 42, 33-40.

Rest, J. R. (1976) New approaches in the assessment of moral judgment. In T. Lackonna (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, 1976.

Rest, J. R. (1979) Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rest, J. R. (1979) Revised manual for the definitive issues test: An objective test of moral judgment development. (3rd ed., 8/90 rev.). Minneapolis: Minnesota Moral Research Projects.

Rest, J. (1986) DIT manual for the defining issues test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Ethical Development.

Ribal, J. E. (1963) Social character and meanings of selfishness and altruism. Sociology and Social Research, 47, 311-321.

Rich, S. U. And S. C. Jain (1968) Social class and life cycle as predictors of shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, Feb., 41-49.

Richardson, D. C., Tomarelli, M. M. and Hendrick, C. (1978) Bibliography of journal articles in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 638 - 652.

Rokeach, M. (1969) Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romer, D., Gruder, C. L. and Lizzadro, T. (1986) A person-situation approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1001-1012.

Rosenhan, D. L., Karylowski, J., Salovey, P, and Hargis, K. (1981) Emotion and altruism In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and Helping Behavior. (pp. 233-248) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, A. M. (1964) Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rubin, K. H. and Schneider, F. W. (1973) The relationship between moral judgment, egocentrism and altruistic behavior. Child Development, 44, 661-665.

Rushton, J. P. (1975) Generosity in children: immediate and long term effects of modeling, preaching and moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 459-466.

Rushton, J. P. (1976) Socialization and the altruistic behavior of children. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 898 - 913.

Rushton, J. P. (1980) Altruism, socialization, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rushton, J. P. (1981) The altruistic personality. In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality, and developmental perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rushton, J. P. and Chrisjohn, R. D. (1981) Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and self-reported delinquency: evidence from eight separate samples Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 11-20.

Rushton, J. P. Chrisjohn, R. D., and Fekken, G. C. (1981) The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.

Rushton, J. P., Russell, R. J. H. and Wells, P. A. (1984) Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selection. Behavior Genetics. 4, 179-193.

Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Rutherford, E., and Mussen, P. (1968) Generosity in nursery school boys. Child Development, 39, 755-765.

Scheier, M. F. and Carver, C. S. (1977) Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 625-636.

Schopler, J. (1967) An investigation of sex differences on the influence of dependence. Sociometry, 30, 50-63.

Schopler, J. and Bateson, N. (1965) The power of dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 247-254.

Schopler, J. and Mathews, M. (1965) The influence of the perceived locus of partner’s dependence on the use of interpersonal power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 609-612.

Schneider, D. J. (1976) Social psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Schwartz, S. H. (1968) Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 232-242.

Scott, B. and Lodge, G. (1986) U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Sharabany, R. and Bar-Tal, D (1982) Theories of the development of altruism: Review, comparison, and integration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5, 49 - 80.

Sherif, M. (1936) The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.

Shimp, T. A. and Sharma, S. (1987) Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the cetscale. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280-289.

Simonson, I. (1992) The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 105-118.

Singleton, C. J. (1992) Auto industry jobs in the 1980s; a decade of transition. Monthly Labor Review, 115, no. 2, 18-27.

Sloan, P. (1986, July 28) Ads go all American. Advertising Age, pp. 3, 52.

Smith, A. (1853) The theory of moral sentiments. London: Henry G. Bohn. (Original work published 1759).

Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P. and Stotland, E. (1989) Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641-650.

Snarey, J. (1985) Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of the Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 202-232.

Staub, E. (1972) Invitation to goodness: the role of social norms and interpersonal influence. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 131-150.

Staub, E. (1974) Helping a distressed person: Social, personality and stimulus determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology. Vol. 7 (pp. 293-341) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1978) Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences. Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1979) Positive social behavior and morality. (2 vols.) Socialization and Development. New York: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1979) Positive social behavior and morality. Vol. 2. Socialization and Development. New York: Academic Press.

Teasdale, J. D. and Fogarty, S. J. (1979) Differential effects of induced mood on retrieval of pleasant and unpleasant events from episodic memory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 248-257.

Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L. and Rosenhan, D. L. (1980) Focus of attention mediates the impact of negative affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 291-300.

Toi, M. and Batson, C. D. (1982) More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Triandis, H. C. (1977) Interpersonal behavior Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

United States (1985) Global competition: The new reality The report of the president’s commission on industrial competitiveness. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Commerce (1994) Statistical abstract of the United States 1994, Table 1062, Exports and imports, by method of transport: 1980 to 1993, Washington, D. C., Bureau of the Census.

Veitch, R. DeWood, R. and Bosko, K. (1977) Radio news broadcasts: Their effects on interpersonal helping. Sociometry, 40, 383-386.

Walster, E. and Piliavin, J. A. (1972) Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 165-189.

Wall, M. and Heslop, L. A. (1986) Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, (2), 27-36.

Warr, P. B., Faust, J. and Harrison, G. J. (1967) A british ethnocentrism scale. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 13, 143-155.

Weiss, R. F., Buchanan, W. Alstatt, L. and Lombardo, J. B. (1971) Altruism is rewarding. Science, 171, 1262 - 1263.

White, P. D. (1979) Attitudes of US purchasing managers toward industrial products manufactured in selected European nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 10, 81-90.

Wicklund, R. A. (1975) Objective self-awareness In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, (pp. 233-275) New York: Academic Press.

Willis, J. A., and Goethals, G. R. (1973) Social responsibility and threat to behavioral freedom as determinatns of alturistic behavior. Journal of Personality, 41, 376 -384.

Wispé, L. G. (Ed.) (1972) Positive forms of social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 1-19.

Wispé, L. G. (Ed.) (1978) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles. New York: Academic Press.

Woods, W. A. (1960) Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24, 15-9.

Worchel, S. and Cooper, J. (1979) Understanding social psychology. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aderman, D. and Berkowitz, L. (1970) Observational set, empathy and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 141 - 148.

Aderman, D. and Berkowitz, L. (1983) Self-concern and the unwillingness to be helpful. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 293-301.

Anderson, Jr., W. T. and Cunningham, W. H. (1972) The socially conscious consumer. Journal of Marketing, 36, 23-31.

Aquinas, T. (1917). The summa theologica (Vol. 2, Part II). (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.) New York: Benziger Bros. (Original work produced 1270).

Aristotle (1932) The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, Trans.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Aronfreed J. (1968) Conduct and Conscience. New York: Academic Press.

Aronfreed, J. (1970) The socialization of altruistic and sympathetic behavior: Some theoretical and experimental analyses. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowitz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Bandura, A. (1971) Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Barnett, M. A. (1987) Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer (Eds.) Empathy and its development (146-162) Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Baron, R. A. and Byrne, D. (1977) Social psychology. (2nd Ed.) Boston: Allen and Bacon.

Bar-tal, D. (1976) Prosocial behavior: theory and research. New York: Halsted Press.

Batra, R. (1993) The myth of free trade. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Batson, C. D. (1987) Prosocial motivation: is it ever truly altruistic? in L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 65-122. San Diego, CA Academic Press.

Batson, C. D. (1991) The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, p. 6.

Batson, C. D. and Coke, J. S. (1981) Empathy: a source of altruistic motivation for helping? In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and helping

behavior: social, personality and developmental perspectives, 167-187, Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T. and Birch, K. (1981) Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290-302.

Batson, C. D., O’Quinn, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., and Isen, A.M. (1983) Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.

Belman, D. and Lee, T. M. (1995) International trade and the performance of U.S. labor Markets. Washington, D. C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., and Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: an integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60, 33-49.

Berkman, H. W. and Gilson, C.C. (1978) Consumer behavior: concepts and strategies. Encino, CA. Dickenson Publishing Co. Inc.

Berkowitz, L. (1972) Social norms, feelings, and other factors affecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 63-108 San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Berkowtiz, L. (1983) Aversively stimulated aggression. American Psychologist, 38, 1135-1144.

Berkowitz, L. (1987) Mood-self-awareness, and willingness to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 721-729.

Berkowitz, L. and Connor, W. H. (1966) Success, failure and social responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 664 - 669.

Berkowitz, L. and Daniels, L. R. (1963) Responsibility and dependency. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 429 - 436.

Berkowitz, L, and Daniels, L. R. (1964) Affecting the salience of the social responsibility norm: effect of past help on the response to dependency relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 275 - 281.

Berkowitz, L. and Friedman, P. (1967) Some social class differences in helping behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 5, 217-225.

Berkowitz, L. and Lutterman, K. G.. (1968) The traditional social responsibility personality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 32, 169-185.

Bilkey, W. J. and Nes, E. (1982) Country-of-origin effects on product evaluations. Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 89-99.

Blasi, A. (1980) Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1-45.

Blau, P. M. (1964) Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Blum, L. A. (1980) Friendship altruism, and morality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Booth, K. (1979) Strategy and ethnocentrism. London: Croom-Helm.

Brabeck, M. (1984) Ethcial characteristics of whistle blowers. Journal of Research in Personality, 18, 41 -53.

Breese, K. S. (1992, February 17) Trade debate hasn’t cost sales. Automotive News, p. 82.

Briggs, Jr., V. M. (1995) Mass immigration, free trade, and the forgotten American worker. Challenge, 37-44.

Brown, S. W. (1987) Drop and collect surveys: A neglected research technique. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 5, 19 - 23.

Brown, P. (1992, February 3) Perkins: buy U.S. efforts won’t help much: Chevy will do well to maintain share. Automotive News, p. 14.

Bryan, J. H. and London, P. (1970) Altruistic behavior by children. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 200 - 211.

Bryan, J. H. and Test, M. A. (1967) Models and helping: Naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 400-407.

Bucklin, R. E. and Gupta, S. (1992) Brand choice, purchase incidence, and segmentation: An integrated modeling approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 201-215.

Business and workers must play by new economic rules. (1991, November) Supervision, 10.

Byrne, D. (1971) The attraction paradigm. Academic Press.

Campbell, D. T. (1975) On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103-1126.

Campbell, D. T. (1978) On the genetics of altruism and the counterhedonic components in human culture. In L. Wispé (Ed.) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles. New York: Academic Press, pp. 39-57.

Campbell, D. T. and Stanley, J. C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally Chicago.

Capasso, D. R. and Hendrick, C. (1976) Bibliography of journal articles in social psychology: second half 1975. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 191 - 206.

Carver, C. and Scheier, M. (1981) Attention and self-regulation. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cateora, P. R. and Hess, J. M. (1979) International marketing. Richard D. Irwin, Illinois.

Cattin, P., Jolibert, A. and Lohnes, C. (1982) A cross-cultural study of made-in concepts Journal of International Business Studies, 13, 131-141.

Chang, E. C. and Ritter, E. H. (1976) Ethnocentrism in black college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 100, 89-98.

Chao, P. and Rajendran, K. N. (1993) Consumer profiles and perceptions: country-of-origin effects. International Marketing Review, 10, 22-39.

(1994, August 19) Trade gap eases, but imports rise. Chicago Tribune, Sec. 3, p. 3., col. 4).

Christie, R. and Geis, F. (Eds.) (1968) Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J. and Kenrick, D. T. (1981) Insights from sadness: A three-step model of the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review, 1, 207-223.

Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L. and Vincent, J. E. (1973) Transgression and altruism: a case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 502-516.

Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C.A. and Reno, R. R. (1991) A focus theory of normative conduct. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201-234.

Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T. and Baumann, D. J. (1982) Effects of mood on prosocial behavior in children and adults. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.) The development of prosocial behavior, 339-359, New York: Academic Press.

Cialdini, R. B. and Kendrick, D. T. (1976) Altruism as hedonism: a social development perspective on the relations of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 907-914.

Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., and Kallgren, C.A. (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public place. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1015-1026.

Cialdini, R. B. Schaller, M. Houlihan, D., Arps, K. Fultz, J and Beaman, A. L. (1987) Empathy-based helping: is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52. 729-758.

Clark, M. S. and Isen, A. M. (1982) Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. Hastorf and A.M. Isen (Eds.) Cognitive Social Psychology New York: Elsevier.

Cohen, R. (1972) Altruism: Human, cultural, or what? Journal of Social Issues, 28, 39-57.

Colby, A. and Kohlberg, L. (1987) The measurement of moral judgment. (Vols. 1 and 2) New York: Cambridge University Press

Comte, I. A. (1875) System of positive polity (Vol. 1). London: Longmans, Green and Co. (Original work published 1851).

Crafted with Pride in U.S.A. Council, Inc. (1994) Update - effects of international trade on U.S. jobs, 43.

Cunningham, M. R., Steinberg J. and Grev, R. (1980) Wanting to and having to help: separate motivations for positive mood and guilt-induced helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 181-192.

Cunningham, M. R. (1981) Sociobiology as a supplementary paradigm for social psychological research. In Review of personality and social psychology, vol. 2, (Ed.) L. Wheeler. Sage.

Daniels, L., and Berkowitz, L. (1963) Liking and response to dependency relationships, Human Relations, 16, 141-148.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1968) Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377 - 383.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215-221.

Darley, J. M. and Latane, B. (1970) Norms and normative behavior: field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay and L. Berkowtiz (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior. (pp. 83-102) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Davison, M. And Robbins, S. (1978) The reliability and validity of objective indices of moral development. Applied Psychological Measurement, 2(3) , 391-403.

Dickerson, K. G. (1986) Consumers rate U.S. clothes higher than imports Marketing-News, 20, 30

Dillin, J. (1992, June 5) Top retailer Wal-Mart a target of strong “buy American” push. The Christian Science Monitor, 84, 3.

Duval, S. Duval, V. H. and Neeley, R. (1979) Self-focus, felt-responsibility, and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1769-1778.

Duval, S. and Wicklund, R. (1972) A theory of self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.

Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J. and Martin, N. G. (1989) Genes, culture, and personality: an empirical approach. Academic Press.

Engel, J. F, Blackwell, R. D. and Kollat, D. T. (1978) Consumer behavior. Hinsdale, IL: The Dryden Press.

Epstein, Y. M. and Hornstein, H. A. (1969) Penalty and interpersonal attraction as factors influencing the decision to help another person. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 272-282.

Erickson, G. M., Johannson, J. K. and Chao, P. (1984) Image variables in multi-attribute product evaluations: county of origin effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 694-699.

Ettenson, R., Wagner, J. and Gaeth, G. (1988) Evaluating the effect of country-of-origin and the ‘made in USA’ campaign: a conjoint approach. Journal of Retailing, 64, 85-100.

Eysenck, H. J. (1954) The psychology of politics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Eysenck, H. J. (1989) Testing one of Rushton’s predictions In Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland (1994) Economic trends. July, 18.

Federouch, A. G. (1990) A conceptualization of market helpfulness: theory and measurement of consumer altruism. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1990) University Microfilms No. AAI9106760.

Feldman, R. E. (1968) Response to compatriot and foreigner who seek assistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 202-214.

Feshbach, N. D. (1978) Studies of empathic behavior in children. In B. A. Maher (Ed.) Progress in Experimental Personality Research, 8, 1-47, New York: Academic Press.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Forgas, J. P., Bower, G. H. and Krantz, S. E. (1984) The influence of mood on perceptions of social interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 497-513.

Fowler, F. J. (1993) Survey Research Methods. (Second Ed.) Sage Publications.

Freedman, J. L., Sears. D. O., and Carlsmith, J. M. (1978) Social psychology. (3rd Ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.

Friedricks, R. W. (1960) Alter vs. ego: an exploratory assessment of altruism. American Sociological Review, 25, 496-508.

Foxall, G. R. (1975) Communication note social factors in consumer choice: Replication and extension. The Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 60-64.

Gaedeke, R. (1973) Consumer attitudes toward products ‘made-in developing countries Journal of Retailing, 49, 13-24.

Gangestad, S. W. (1989) Uncompelling theory, uncompelling data. In Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Gibbons, F. X. and Wicklund, R. A. (1982) Self-focused attention and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 462-474.

Gibbs, J. and Widaman, K. (1982) Social intelligence: Measuring the development of sociomoral reflection. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Goolsby, J.R. and Hunt, S. D. (1992) Cognitive moral development and marketing. Journal of Marketing, 56, 55-68.

Goranson, R. E. and Berkowtiz, L. (1966) Reciprocity and responsibility reaction to prior help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 227 - 232.

Gough, H. G., McLosky, H. and Meehl, P. E. (1952) A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 73-80.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960) The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161 - 178.

Graham, J. H., Shipley, D. and Krieger, N. (1988) A method for modeling consumer perceptions of country-of-origin, International Marketing Review, 5, 67-76.

Greene, R. C. and Plank, R. E. (1994) The short-form family environment scale: testing a different response format. Psychological Reports, 74, 451-464.

Haakanson, H. and Wootz, B. (1975) Supplier selection in an international environment - an experimental study. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 46-51.

Hampton, G. M. (1977) Perceived risk in buying products made abroad by American firms. Baylor Business Studies, 53-64.

Han, M. and Terpstra, V. (1988) Country of origin effects for uni-national and bi-national products. Journal of International Business Studies, 19, 234-256.

Hartshorne, H. and May, M. A. (1928) Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit. 1, New York, Macmillan,.

Hartshorne, H., May, M. A. and Maller, J. B. (1929) Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit. 2, New York: Macmillan.

Hartshorne, H., May, M. A. and Shuttleworth, F. K, (1930) Studies in the nature of character: studies in the organization of character. 3, New York, Macmillan.

Hasty, S. (1996) It was a tough year for sales. Apparel Industry Magazine, 57, 19-30

Hatfield, E., Walster, G. W. and Piliavin, J. A. (1978) Equity theory and helping relationships. In L. Wispé (Ed.) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles (pp. 115-139). New York: Academic Press.

Hetherington, E. M. and Parke, R. D. (1975) Child development: a contemporary viewpoint. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hirsch, J. S. and Milbank, D. (1992, January 28) Buy-American is easier said than done. Wall Street Journal, 219, sec. B, p. 1, 5.

Hoffman, M. L. (1984) Interaction of affect and cognition on empathy. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, and R. B. Zajonc (Eds.) Emotions, cognition and behavior. (103-131). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Homans, G. C. (1961) Social behavior: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc.

Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. (1989) Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Howard, J. A., and Sheth, J. N. (1969) The theory of buyer behavior. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Hume, D. (1896) A treatise of human nature. (L. A. Selby-Bigge, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1751).

Isen, A. M. (1970) Success, failure, attention and reaction to others: the warm glow of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 294-301.

Isen, A. M., and Levin P. F. (1972) Effect of feeling good on helping: cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 239-247.

Isen, A.M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., and Karp, L (1978) Affect, accessibility of material in memory and behavior: a cognitive loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1-12.

Isen, A. M. and Simmonds, S. F. (1978) The effect of feeling good on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood. Social Psychology, 41, 346-349.

Johansson, J. K (1989) Determinants and effects of the use of “made in” labels. International Marketing Review, 6, 47-58.

Johansson, J. K., Douglas, S. P. and Nonaka, I. (1985) Assessing the impact of country-of- origin on product evaluations: a new methodological perspective. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 388-394.

Jones, R. and D. Teece (1987) Research agenda on competitiveness: a program of research for the nation’s business schools, international business working paper. No. IB-7 Berkeley Business School, Berkeley, CA.

Karylowski, J. (1979) Self-focused attention, prosocial norms and prosocial behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 10, 57-66.

Kassajarian, H. (1978) Presidential address 1977: anthropomorphism and parsimony. In Advances in Consumer Research, 5, Ed. H. Keith Hunt. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, pp. xii-xiv.

Kasulis, Jack J., Lusch, R. F and Stafford, Jr., E. F. (1979) Consumer acquisition patterns for durable goods. The Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 47-57.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986) Foundations of Behavioral Research. (3rd Ed.) Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.

Kidd, R. F. and Marshall, L (1982) Self-reflection, mood, and helpful behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 319-334.

Kohlberg, L (1958) The development of modes of moral thinking in the years ten to sixteen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago.

Kohlberg, L. (1969) Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.) Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally Part I, No. 6, 347.

Krebs, D. L. (1970) Altruism-an examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 258-302.

Krebs, D. (1978) A cognitive-developmental approach to altruism. In Wispé, L. Altruism, sympathy, and helping. Academic Press, pp. 141-162.

Krebs, D. L. and Miller, D. T. (1985) Altruism and aggression. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.) The handbook of social psychology. (3rd ed., 2, 1-71) New York: Random House.

Latane, B. and Dabbs, J. M. (1975) Sex, group size and helping in three cities. Sociometry, 38, 180 - 194.

Latane, B. and Darley, J. M (1968) Group inhibition of bystander intervention in emergencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 215 - 221.

Lawrence, R. Z. (1984) Can America compete? Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Leeds, R. (1963) Altruism and the norm of giving. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 229 -240.

Lerner, M. J. (1977) The justice motive: some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal of Personality, 45, 1 - 53.

Lillis, C .M. and Narayana, C. (1974) Analysis of made in product images- an exploratory study. Journal of International Business Studies, 5, 119-127.

Lockwood, A. (1970) Relations of political and moral thought. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.

Luttwak, E. (1993) The endangered American dream: How to stop the United States from becoming a third world country and how to win the geo-economic struggle for economic supremacy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Manucia, G. K. Baumann, D. J. and Cialdini, R. B. (1984) Mood influences on helping: direct effects or side effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 357-364.

Markin, R. J. (1974) Consumer behavior: a cognitive orientation. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Marini, M. M. (1984) Age and sequencing norms in the transition to adulthood. Social Forces, 63, 229-244.

McKirnan, D. J. (1980) The conceptualization of deviance: A conceptualization and initial test of a model of social norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 79-93.

Mealey, L. (1985) Comment on genetic similarity theory. Behavior Genetics, 15, 571-574.

Mehrens, W. A. and Lehmann, I. J. (1973) Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Meyer, W., and Dusek, J. B. (1979) Child development: A developmental perspective. Lexington, Massachusetts: D. D. Heath.

Middlebrook, P.N. (1974) Social psychology and modern life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Midlarsky, E. (1968) Aiding responses: An analysis and review. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 14, 229-260.

Modic, S. J. (1990) Reader survey shows: Imports still stir emotions. Purchasing World, 25-26.

Monroe, D. B. (1973) Buyer’s subjective perceptions of pride. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 70-80.

Morello, G. (1984) The made-in issue: A comparative research on the images of domestic and foreign products. European Research, January, 5-21.

Mussen, P. H. and Eisenberg-Berg, N. (1977) Roots of caring, sharing and helping. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

Nagashima, A. (1970) A comparison of Japanese and U.S. attitudes toward foreign products. Journal of Marketing, 34, 68-74.

Nagashima, A. (1977) A comparison made in product image survey among Japanese businessmen. Journal of Marketing, 41, 95-100.

Niffeneger, P. B. (1980) How imports rate in comparison to domestic products: A retailer survey. In Summner, J. H. and Tayler, R. D. (Eds.) Evolving Marketing Thought for 1980. Southern Marketing Association, USA.

O’Brien, T. V. (1971) Tracking consumer decision making. The Journal of Marketing, 35, 34-40.

Olsen, J. E., Granzin, K. L. and Biswas, A. (1993) Influencing consumers’ selection of domestic versus imported products: implications for marketing based on a model of helping behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 307-321.

Olson, J. C. (1977) Price as an information cue: effects on product evaluation. In Woodside, A. G., Sheth, J. N and Bennet, P. D. (Eds.) Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior North Holland, New York, 267-286.

Olshavsky, R. W. and D. H. Granbois (1979) Consumer decision making - fact or fiction. The Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 93-100.

Olshavsky, R. W. (1985) Perceived quality in consumer decision making: An integrated theoretical perspective. In Jacoby, J. and Olson, J. C. (Eds.) Consumer Perception of Merchandise and Store Quality Lexington Books, Lexington, Mass, 3-30.

Pepitone, A. (1976) Toward a normative and comparative biocultural social psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 641-653.

Piaget, J. (1932) The moral development of the child. Long: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Piaget, J. (1965) The Moral Judgment of a Child. (M. Gabain, translator) New York: The Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1970) Structuralism. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Piliavin, I, Rodin, J. and Piliavin, J. (1969) Good samaritanism: an underground phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 289 - 299.

Poindexter, J. T. (1993) Labor and economic trends: effect on U.S. workforce Review of Business, 15, 34-37.

Porter, M. (1991) The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Progress made but concerns abound over U.S. competitiveness. Industrial Engineering (1994, Sept.), 26, p. 8.

Reeves, R. A., Richardson, D. C., and Hendrick, C. (1979) Bibliography of journal articles in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 524 - 542.

Reierson, C. (1966) Are foreign products seen as national stereotypes? Journal of Retailing, 42, 33-40.

Rest, J. R. (1976) New approaches in the assessment of moral judgment. In T. Lackonna (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, & Winston, 1976.

Rest, J. R. (1979) Development in judging moral issues. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Rest, J. R. (1979) Revised manual for the definitive issues test: An objective test of moral judgment development. (3rd ed., 8/90 rev.). Minneapolis: Minnesota Moral Research Projects.

Rest, J. (1986) DIT manual for the defining issues test. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Center for the Study of Ethical Development.

Ribal, J. E. (1963) Social character and meanings of selfishness and altruism. Sociology and Social Research, 47, 311-321.

Rich, S. U. And S. C. Jain (1968) Social class and life cycle as predictors of shopping behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, Feb., 41-49.

Richardson, D. C., Tomarelli, M. M. and Hendrick, C. (1978) Bibliography of journal articles in personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 638 - 652.

Rokeach, M. (1969) Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Romer, D., Gruder, C. L. and Lizzadro, T. (1986) A person-situation approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1001-1012.

Rosenhan, D. L., Karylowski, J., Salovey, P, and Hargis, K. (1981) Emotion and altruism In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and Helping Behavior. (pp. 233-248) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rosenthal, A. M. (1964) Thirty-eight witnesses. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rubin, K. H. and Schneider, F. W. (1973) The relationship between moral judgment, egocentrism and altruistic behavior. Child Development, 44, 661-665.

Rushton, J. P. (1975) Generosity in children: immediate and long term effects of modeling, preaching and moral judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 459-466.

Rushton, J. P. (1976) Socialization and the altruistic behavior of children. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 898 - 913.

Rushton, J. P. (1980) Altruism, socialization, and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Rushton, J. P. (1981) The altruistic personality. In J. P. Rushton and R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.) Altruism and helping behavior: social, personality, and developmental perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Rushton, J. P. and Chrisjohn, R. D. (1981) Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and self-reported delinquency: evidence from eight separate samples Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 11-20.

Rushton, J. P. Chrisjohn, R. D., and Fekken, G. C. (1981) The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293-302.

Rushton, J. P., Russell, R. J. H. and Wells, P. A. (1984) Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selection. Behavior Genetics. 4, 179-193.

Rushton, J. P. (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.

Rutherford, E., and Mussen, P. (1968) Generosity in nursery school boys. Child Development, 39, 755-765.

Scheier, M. F. and Carver, C. S. (1977) Self-focused attention and the experience of emotion: Attraction, repulsion, elation, and depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 625-636.

Schopler, J. (1967) An investigation of sex differences on the influence of dependence. Sociometry, 30, 50-63.

Schopler, J. and Bateson, N. (1965) The power of dependence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 247-254.

Schopler, J. and Mathews, M. (1965) The influence of the perceived locus of partner’s dependence on the use of interpersonal power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 609-612.

Schneider, D. J. (1976) Social psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Schwartz, S. H. (1968) Words, deeds, and the perception of consequences and responsibility in action situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 232-242.

Scott, B. and Lodge, G. (1986) U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Sharabany, R. and Bar-Tal, D (1982) Theories of the development of altruism: Review, comparison, and integration. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 5, 49 - 80.

Sherif, M. (1936) The psychology of social norms. New York: Harper.

Shimp, T. A. and Sharma, S. (1987) Consumer ethnocentrism: construction and validation of the cetscale. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280-289.

Simonson, I. (1992) The influence of anticipating regret and responsibility on purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 105-118.

Singleton, C. J. (1992) Auto industry jobs in the 1980s; a decade of transition. Monthly Labor Review, 115, no. 2, 18-27.

Sloan, P. (1986, July 28) Ads go all American. Advertising Age, pp. 3, 52.

Smith, A. (1853) The theory of moral sentiments. London: Henry G. Bohn. (Original work published 1759).

Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P. and Stotland, E. (1989) Altruism reconsidered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 641-650.

Snarey, J. (1985) Cross-cultural universality of social-moral development: A critical review of the Kohlbergian research. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 202-232.

Staub, E. (1972) Invitation to goodness: the role of social norms and interpersonal influence. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 131-150.

Staub, E. (1974) Helping a distressed person: Social, personality and stimulus determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Psychology. Vol. 7 (pp. 293-341) San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1978) Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences. Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1979) Positive social behavior and morality. (2 vols.) Socialization and Development. New York: Academic Press.

Staub, E. (1979) Positive social behavior and morality. Vol. 2. Socialization and Development. New York: Academic Press.

Teasdale, J. D. and Fogarty, S. J. (1979) Differential effects of induced mood on retrieval of pleasant and unpleasant events from episodic memory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 248-257.

Thompson, W. C., Cowan, C. L. and Rosenhan, D. L. (1980) Focus of attention mediates the impact of negative affect on altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 291-300.

Toi, M. and Batson, C. D. (1982) More evidence that empathy is a source of altruistic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 281-292.

Triandis, H. C. (1977) Interpersonal behavior Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

United States (1985) Global competition: The new reality The report of the president’s commission on industrial competitiveness. Washington: US Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Commerce (1994) Statistical abstract of the United States 1994, Table 1062, Exports and imports, by method of transport: 1980 to 1993, Washington, D. C., Bureau of the Census.

Veitch, R. DeWood, R. and Bosko, K. (1977) Radio news broadcasts: Their effects on interpersonal helping. Sociometry, 40, 383-386.

Walster, E. and Piliavin, J. A. (1972) Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 165-189.

Wall, M. and Heslop, L. A. (1986) Consumer attitudes toward Canadian-made versus imported products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 14, (2), 27-36.

Warr, P. B., Faust, J. and Harrison, G. J. (1967) A british ethnocentrism scale. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 13, 143-155.

Weiss, R. F., Buchanan, W. Alstatt, L. and Lombardo, J. B. (1971) Altruism is rewarding. Science, 171, 1262 - 1263.

White, P. D. (1979) Attitudes of US purchasing managers toward industrial products manufactured in selected European nations. Journal of International Business Studies, 10, 81-90.

Wicklund, R. A. (1975) Objective self-awareness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 8, (pp. 233-275) New York: Academic Press.

Willis, J. A., and Goethals, G. R. (1973) Social responsibility and threat to behavioral freedom as determinants of altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality, 41, 376 -384.

Wispé, L. G. (Ed.) (1972) Positive forms of social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 1-19.

Wispé, L. G. (Ed.) (1978) Altruism, sympathy, and helping: Psychological and sociological principles. New York: Academic Press.

Woods, W. A. (1960) Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24, 15-9.

Worchel, S. and Cooper, J. (1979) Understanding social psychology. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.