steenkamp 2001

InternationalMarketingReview18,1

30

International Marketing Review,Vol. 18 No. 1, 2001, pp. 30-44.# MCB University Press, 0265-1335

The role of national culture ininternational marketing

researchJan-Benedict E. M. SteenkampTilburg University, The Netherlands

Keywords National cultures, International marketing, Acculturation, Marketing research

Abstract Reviews and discusses the role of national culture in international marketing research.Special emphasis is given to national cultural frameworks. The two main national culturalframeworks ± the Hofstede and the Schwartz ± are discussed. Their interrelations are examinedand four comprehensive national-cultural dimensions are derived ± autonomy versus collectivism,egalitarianism versus hierarchy, mastery versus nurturance, and uncertainty avoidance. Theusefulness of national culture as an analytical basis in international marketing research isdiscussed and the construct of national culture is placed in the context of layers of culture,ranging from global cultures to micro cultures. Acculturation processes to other national culturesand antecedents of national culture are examined. The paper ends with concluding remarks andsuggestions for future research.

IntroductionA country's culture has long been identified as a key environmentalcharacteristic underlying systematic differences in behavior. Cultural normsand beliefs are powerful forces shaping people's perceptions, dispositions, andbehaviors (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Culture is reflected in `̀ generaltendencies of persistent preference for particular states of affairs over others,persistent preferences for specific social processes over others, and generalrules for selective attention, interpretation of environmental cues, andresponses'' (Tse et al., 1988, p. 82).

The failure to take cultural differences between countries into account hasbeen the cause of many business failures (Ricks, 1993). Moreover, many of ourmarketing theories have been developed and validated only in Westerncountries, particularly the USA. The further advancement of marketing as anacademic discipline requires that the validity of our theories and models beexamined in other cultural settings as well to identify their degree ofgeneralizability and to uncover boundary conditions. Studying the role ofnational culture in marketing teaches us `̀ the many ways in which our theoriesand paradigms are a reflection of the culture in which they were developed''(Iyengar and Lepper, 1999, p. 364). For example, well-known theories andapproaches such as cognitive dissonance, attribution theory, preferencemodeling, and individual choice modeling, to name just a few, may not apply tocollectivistic cultures without modifications (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999).

The purpose of this article is to review the role of national culture ininternational marketing research with special emphasis being given to nationalcultural frameworks. We first discuss the two main national cultural

The research register for this journal is available athttp://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com/ft

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

http;//www.emerald-library.com/ft

The role ofnational culture

31

frameworks and explore their interrelations as a first step to arriving at aunified national cultural framework. Next, we examine the usefulness ofnational culture as an analytical basis in international marketing research andplace national culture in the context of layers of culture, ranging from globalcultures to micro cultures. Then, we review processes through whichindividuals acculturate to other cultures. Subsequently, we examineantecedents of national culture. The paper ends with concluding remarks andsuggestions for future research.

National cultural frameworksNational culture has numerous facets. Some facets may be relevant only for aparticular society, others for multiple, if not all, societies. In this paper, weconcentrate on facets that are relevant to multiple societies. In the past, cross-cultural research was sometimes perceived to be less rigorous because sound,theory-based national-cultural frameworks were lacking. Valid frameworksdelineating dimensions of national cultural variation are crucial in creating anomological framework that is capable of integrating diverse attitudinal andbehavioral phenomena and provides a basis for developing hypothesesexplaining systematic variation between cultures in attitudes and behavior(Smith et al., 1996). Such frameworks are necessary to move internationalmarketing research beyond exploratory, qualitative comparisons, which aredifficult to validate or replicate.

Two rigorous, comprehensive frameworks have been developed in the lasttwo decades ± the Hofstede (1980, 1991) and the Schwartz (1994, 1997). Theseframeworks can be used by the international marketing researcher for cross-national theorizing and for designing studies. They serve as the point ofdeparture for understanding different layers of culture, for starting tounderstand and test antecedents of national culture, and for assessing culturalstability, among others.

Hofstede's frameworkHofstede (1980, 1991) developed by far the most influential national culturalframework. Using a combination of empirical and eclectic analyses, Hofstedederived and defined four dimensions of cultural variation ± individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertaintyavoidance. These dimensions are based on four fundamental problems whichsociety faces:

(1) the relationship between the individual and the group;

(2) social inequality;

(3) social implications of gender; and

(4) handling of uncertainty inherent in economic and social processes.

Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) have reported 1,101 citations to his work in theperiod 1987-1997. Fernandez et al. (1997, pp. 43-4) call it `̀ a watershed


32

conceptual foundation for many subsequent cross-national researchendeavors''. His framework has been applied to investigate a number ofmarketing issues such as the use of humor in ads (Alden et al., 1993), responsestyle tendencies (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1999), consumer responses tomarket signals of quality (Dawar and Parker, 1994), consumer tippingdecisions (Lynn et al., 1993), new product development (Nakata and Sivakumar,1996), brand market share (Roth, 1995), and consumer innovativeness(Steenkamp et al., 1999). Hofstede (1991) provides the ratings of 50 countriesand three regions on these dimensions.

Nevertheless, the Hofstede framework is not without its limitations. Thecorrespondence between the items used to measure the cultural dimensions andthe conceptual definition of these dimensions is tenuous. It is also not clearwhether the items have the same meaning in different countries. Country scoresare based on matched samples of IBM employees, which are not necessarilyrepresentative for their countries. This may apply especially to less-developedcountries. Data collection took place in 1967-1973, although Hoppe (1990)conducted an update for 19 countries in 1984 and found reasonable stability (rsvarying between 0.56 and 0.69). Hofstede's items refer to work-related values,which might not completely overlap with priorities of people in other roles (e.g.consumers). Hofstede's dimension of masculinity/femininity has been criticizedas being time- and context- specific.

Schwartz's frameworkMore recently, Schwartz (1994, 1997), Schwartz and Ros (1995), Smith andSchwartz (1997) have proposed an alternative framework. Schwartz'sframework is based on his seminal work on human values but it is not well-known in marketing. He identified three basic societal issues:

(1) relations between individual and group;

(2) assuring responsible social behavior; and

(3) the role of humankind in the natural and social world.

The cultural adaptations to resolve each of these issues constitute hisframework, which consists of three bipolar dimensions, defining sevennational-cultural domains.

The first dimension contrasts conservatism versus autonomy. Conservatismdescribes cultures in which the person is looked upon as an entity who isembedded in the collectivity. Emphasis is given to maintenance of the statusquo, propriety, and restraint of actions that might disrupt the solidarity of agroup or the existing order. Autonomy describes cultures in which the personis viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in their ownuniqueness and seeks to express their own internal attributes. Two types ofautonomy are distinguished. Intellectual autonomy refers to ideas andthoughts, the right of individuals to follow their own intellectual directions.Affective autonomy refers to feelings and emotions, the right of individuals to


33

pursue their own affectively positive experiences. This dimension resemblesHofstede's individualism/collectivism dimension. However, while the Schwartzdimension focuses on the role of the individual within society and examines theextent to which a society views the individual as either autonomous orembedded in the group, Hofstede's individualism/collectivism focuses on thecontrast between individual goals versus group goals.

The second dimension contrasts hierarchy versus egalitarianism. One wayto assure socially responsible behavior is through a hierarchical system ofascribed roles. It emphasizes the legitimacy of fixed roles and resourceallocation. An alternative solution to the societal issue of responsible socialbehavior is to induce people to recognize that they have shared interests thatcan serve as bases for voluntary agreements to cooperate. In egalitariancultures, people are socialized to internalize a commitment to voluntarycooperation with others and to feel concern for everyone's welfare. Thiscultural domain emphasizes transcendence of selfish interests.

A society's response to the third societal issue of the relation of humankindto the surrounding natural and social world can take two forms. One response,labeled mastery, is to seek to actively master and change the world, to bend it toour will and to assert control, and on getting ahead through active self-assertion. Another response, labeled harmony, is to accept the world as it is,trying to preserve it rather than to change or exploit it. Schwartz (1994)provides ratings on the seven domains for 31 countries.

Schwartz's framework is based on empirical analyses of country-levelresponses of large groups of people (mostly students and teachers). There is aclose match between the definition of the seven cultural domains and the items,and the items were shown to have similar meanings across cultures. The itemsare broader than Hofstede's work-related items. On the other hand, the type ofitems Schwartz had in his data sets limited the derivation of the culturaldomains/dimensions. These items were developed to measure individual-levelvalue dimensions. Moreover, whereas the usefulness of the Hofstedeframework in international marketing is well established, Schwartz'sframework has yet to be applied widely. However, given its strong theoreticalfoundations, it offers great potential for international marketing research.

Thus, international marketing researchers have two well-developed nationalcultural schemes at their disposal. These are also based on extensive andglobally dispersed samples. Dependent on one's theoretical predictions and thesample of nations, either or both of the schemes can be used. For example,Schwartz's sample of nations includes nine Eastern European countries, whileHofstede's data set contains more countries from South Asia and LatinAmerica.

Toward a unified national cultural framework?The conceptual description of the Hofstede and Schwartz dimensions/domainssuggests at least some overlap between the two frameworks. We explored thisissue formally by conducting a principal components analysis with promax


34

rotation on the national cultural ratings on the four Hofstede dimensions andthe seven Schwartz cultural domains together for 24 countries that wereincluded in both data sets (Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1994). The countries areshown in Table I. Countries from all continents except Africa could be included.

Four factors explained 81 per cent of the variance. The first factor showssalient (>|0.5|) loadings (standardized regression coefficients) for intellectualautonomy (0.83; S), affective autonomy (0.94; S), conservatism (±0.73; S),individualism (0.59; H), and power distance (±0.73; H)[1]. This dimension dealswith the extent to which persons in a society are autonomous versus embeddedin groups. Power distance loads highly on this dimension, which is consistentwith Hofstede (1980), who also was unable to separate empirically thisdimension from individualism/collectivism. It appears that group-oriented,collectivistic societies that emphasize the status quo and restraint of actionsthat disrupt the group typically accept unequal distribution of power. Powerdistance also is related to conservatism with its emphasis on maintenance ofthe existing order.

The second dimension reveals salient loadings for egalitarianism (0.87; S),hierarchy (±0.96; S), and harmony (0.63; S). This dimension deals with how toconsider the interests of other people and coordinate with them. This can be

Table I.Country ratings onfour generalisednational-culturaldimensionsa

Country Autonomy Egalitarianism MasteryUncertaintyavoidance

Australia 2 3 30 ±63Brazil ±36 ±25 8 23Denmark 44 61 ±58 ±71Finland 18 38 ±98 ±4France 77 30 ±41 64Germany (West) 60 28 15 14Greece ±2 36 72 68Hong Kong ±54 ±55 20 ±44Israel 20 ±69 11 ±54Italy ±10 91 30 6Japan 15 ±57 83 46Malaysia ±91 ±41 36 ±25Mexico ±50 9 51 62The Netherlands 16 36 ±53 ±44New Zealand 41 6 39 ±52Portugal ±26 47 ±6 61Singapore ±89 ±48 ±34 ±55Spain 42 52 ±15 61Sweden 53 43 ±92 ±44Switzerland 93 24 32 24Taiwan ±59 ±54 ±12 23Thailand ±33 ±106 ±45 30Turkey ±40 ±51 ±45 52USA 11 1 70 ±76

Note: a Factor scores 50


35

done by relying on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles or through avoluntary commitment to cooperate in harmony with others.

Mastery (0.88; S) and masculinity (0.83; H) load highly on the thirddimension. This dimension refers to the tendency to assertively try to controlthe social and natural world. The fourth dimension shows high loadings foruncertainty avoidance (0.79; H) and harmony (0.57; S). Maintaining harmony isone way to handle uncertainty, essentially by avoiding the uncertainty inherentin conflict.

Thus, the first and the third dimension are largely shared by the twoschemes: the relation between the individual and the group, and the emphasison assertiveness and achievement. The second dimension, found in Schwartz'sscheme but less clearly in Hofstede's work, pertains to the cultural mechanismsto assure responsible social behavior. A fourth dimension, more clearlydelineated by Hofstede, is the ways in which society deals with uncertainty.

Thus, this analysis suggests the following four national cultural dimensions:autonomy versus collectivism, egalitarianism versus hierarchy, mastery versusnurturance, and uncertainty avoidance. The first two dimensions are correlated0.53. The other correlations are negligible (below 0.15). The relatively highcorrelation between the dimensions autonomy and egalitarianism is consistentwith Schwartz and Ros (1995, pp. 97-8). That societies emphasizingconservatism will tend to emphasize hierarchy as well as the view of the personas embedded in a collectivity of mutually obligated others underlies bothcultural domains. On the other hand, egalitarianism and autonomy share theview of the individual as an autonomous self. In high autonomy cultures wherethe person might naturally lack commitment to others, egalitarianism valuesare necessary for the smooth functioning of societal relations. In collectivisticcultures, identification with in-group members ensures concern of their welfare(Schwartz and Ros, 1995). Table I provides the score of each country on eachdimension[2].

Two-stage cluster analysis (Ward's and K-means) was applied to the factorscores to identify `̀ culture areas''. The scree test indicated that the countriescould be grouped in seven such areas: Anglo (USA, Australia, New Zealand,Israel), Western Europe (Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain), Nordic(Denmark, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands), Latin (Italy, Portugal, Greece,Mexico), Far East (Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore), Japan, and a cluster thatwas labeled `̀ Other'' (Brazil, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey), but which wassurprisingly tight. The key distinguishing feature of the Anglo cluster was thatit rated lowest of all clusters on uncertainty avoidance. The Western Europeancluster rated highest of all on autonomy and high on uncertainty avoidance.The Nordic cluster rated highest of all on nurturance (lowest on mastery), withthe Latin cluster highest on egalitarianism, and low on uncertainty avoidance.The Far East cluster rated the highest on collectivism (lowest on autonomy),high on hierarchy (low on egalitarianism), and low on uncertainty avoidance,while the Latin cluster rated highest on egalitarianism and uncertaintyavoidance. Japan rated highest of all clusters on mastery and also very high on


36

hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance. The `̀ Other'' cluster rated highest onhierarchy and high on collectivism.

Usefulness of national culture as analytical basisMuch cross-cultural work in marketing and other social science disciplines hasused country as the basic unit of analysis (e.g. Lynn et al., 1993; Roth, 1995;Schwartz and Ros, 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999). This should not be taken as animplication that country and culture are the same. National boundaries neednot always coincide with culturally homogeneous societies. This raises thequestion: Can culture be validly conceptualized at the national level?

A culture can be validly conceptualized at the national level if there existssome meaningful degree of within-country commonality and between-countrydifferences in culture. The literature indicates that this is indeed the case.Hofstede (1991, p. 12) argued that today's nations `̀ are the source of aconsiderable amount of common mental programming of their citizens'' due toa relatively similar history, language, political, legal and educationalenvironment, among others. This does not imply that countries are fullyhomogeneous, but that there are forces pushing to a meaningful degree ofwithin-country commonality. Many others (e.g. Smith and Bond, 1993; Smith etal., 1996; Schwartz, 1994) share Hofstede's position.

Moreover, the empirical work by Hofstede (1980; 1991), Hoppe (1990),Schwartz (1994), and Smith et al. (1996), among others, shows that there issystematic variation between countries on the national-cultural level. Thecountries are clearly separated from each other on national-culturaldimensions. If there were no degree of commonality within countries anddiversity between countries, such results would be unlikely to emerge. Hofstede(1980) found that, even for countries that are less well culturally integrated, thedifferent ethnic and/or linguistic groups have important commonality inculture in comparison to the population of other countries. Smith and Schwartz(1997, p. 112) report that cultural differences among samples from three regionsin China, three in Japan, and five in the USA `̀ were dwarfed by the much largerdifferences between nations.'' Schwartz and Ros (1995) found across a sampleof 13 countries that nation accounted for about three times more variance in theratings on the items used to measure national culture than any within-nationalvariable examined, such as gender, education, age, and marital status.

Finally, conceptual and empirical studies in marketing and other socialsciences that examine cultural effects at the country level have yielded manyimportant and interesting insights (e.g. Alden et al., 1993; Lynn et al., 1993;Roth, 1995; Smith and Bond, 1993; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Tse et al., 1988). Ifthere were no degree of within-country commonality and between-countrydifferences in culture, such findings would be hard, if not impossible to achieve.

Layers of cultureIt is important to recognize that the national level is not the only level at whichculture can be operationalized. Schwartz and Ros (1995, p. 95) argue that


37

`̀ Culture-level dimensions should be derived from analyses of the dynamics ofconflict and compatibility that cultural groups experience when pursuing andjustifying their actions''. These cultural groups can be defined and studied atdifferent levels, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We candistinguish between meta (pan-regional, global) culture, national culture, andmicro culture.

Meta culturesClusters of countries may exhibit a number of common pan-regional culturalcharacteristics (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Smith and Schwartz, 1997). Theabove cluster analysis on the combined Hofstede and Schwartz dimensions alsorevealed regions that are culturally quite distinct from each other. There is alsogrowing evidence of emerging global cultures with emphasis on modernity,technology, freedom, and individual choice. These cultures are less crystallizedas yet and are shared not so much between countries as between particularindividuals within countries. Hannerz (1990, p. 237) notes that global culturesare developing as a result of the `̀ increasing interconnectedness of varied localcultures as well as through the development of cultures without a clearanchorage in any one territory''. People belonging to a global culture associatesimilar meanings with certain places, people and things (Alden et al., 1999a).They share sets of symbols (e.g. brands, consumption activities), experiences(e.g. travel), and attitudes (e.g. cosmopolitan outlook) (Hannerz, 1990)

Appadurai (1990) proposes a particularly relevant diffusion framework forglobal culture with five paths of cross-cultural flow (termed `̀ scapes''). Theseare `̀ ethnoscapes'' (involving persons moving around the world as refugees,tourists, foreign students, immigrants, etc.), `̀ technoscapes'' (globalconfiguration of technology), `̀ finanscapes'' (financial markets and moneyflows), `̀ ideoscapes'' (political ideas and ideologies), and `̀ mediascapes'' (themedia themselves and the images of the world created by them). Of particularimportance to marketing is the mediascape. Mass media programming, flowingprimarily from the USA, has played a major role in the creation of globalcultures (Appadurai, 1990).

Some recent empirical research sheds light on the emergence of globalcultures. Alden et al. (1999a) introduced the concept of global consumer culturepositioning, while studies by Dawar and Parker (1994), ter Hofstede et al. (1999)and Wedel et al. (1998) provide evidence for the existence of pan-regional orglobal consumer segments.

Micro culturesWhereas meta culture is even more general than national culture, micro orsubculture is more specific. As societies become less homogeneous, due to forexample, individualization and migration, it becomes increasingly important tostudy within-country cultural heterogeneity. A micro culture preservesimportant patterns of the national culture but also develops its own uniquepatterns of dispositions and behavior. Such micro cultures may be defined on


38

various overlapping criteria, including, for example, language, ethnicity,religion, age, urbanization, and social class. The domain of micro culture isrelatively understudied, and many issues still have to be resolved. For example,it is unclear whether micro cultures can be defined on common dimensions, likenational cultures, and whether micro cultures share cultural characteristicsacross countries. The mutual influences of micro cultures and national culturealso need more attention.

Acculturation to another national cultureWith increasing cross-cultural contact and globalization of marketingactivities, the issue of how individuals react to the national culture of othercountries becomes increasingly important for marketers (Alden et al., 1999b).The most intense form is migration, where individuals move to anothercountry. Many of the early acculturation models assumed a linearprogression (Gordon, 1964) from arrival to `̀ assimilation'' within the nationalculture of the host country. Wallendorf and Reilly (1983) challenged the linearmodel and found that the Mexican-American immigrants in their sampleconsumed greater amounts of traditional American foods than did Anglos.They hypothesized that Mexican-Americans may have `̀ over-assimilated''due to exaggerated mental representations of US life, in part from mediaimagery. Jun et al. (1993) argued that acculturation is best described as a U-shaped process. As such, it is hypothesized to begin with a `̀ honeymoon''phase (similar to Wallendorf and Reilly's (1983) concept of `̀ over-assimilation''), followed by a rejection phase and, ultimately, a more stablerelationship with the host culture. However, as individuals move toward thisequilibrium relationship, they may `̀ experience the honeymoon and rejectionstage more than once,'' suggesting that the process is dynamic and cyclical(Jun et al., 1993, p. 77).

Acculturation to another culture is most compelling in the case of actualmigration but also occurs through other forms of cross-cultural contact. Twoimportant `̀ milder'' forms are mass mediation and vicarious mass migration(Appadurai, 1996). Mass mediation may be local in scope but Appadurai (1996,p. 4) notes that `̀ few important films, news broadcasts or television spectaclesare entirely unaffected by other media events that come from further afield.''Mass media are a channel for transmitting events, images, and otherinformation from other cultures. Concerning vicarious mass migration,Appadurai (1996, p. 4) argues that `̀ few people in the world today do not have afriend, relative, or co-worker who is not on the road to somewhere else oralready coming back home, bearing stories and possibilities''. Tourism couldalso be placed in this category. It is a kind of temporary migration with an easyopportunity to opt out of the foreign culture. With the huge increase of actualmigration, vicarious migration, and mass mediation, understandingacculturation processes is more important than ever.

Berry et al. (1989) and Berry and Sam (1997) proposed a comprehensivemodel of acculturation responses. They distinguished two dimensions:


39

whether the person wants to maintain their own cultural identity (culturalmaintenance) and whether the person wants to become involved with thenational culture in the host country (contact and participation). Dependent onthe answer to both questions, people will exhibit any of four acculturationstrategies: integration (both maintenance and participation), assimilation(participation while rejecting one's own original cultural background),separation (maintenance while rejecting the national culture of the hostcountry), and marginalization (rejection of both cultures). Alden et al. (1999b)recently used Berry et al.'s model to understand people's acculturationresponse to the emerging global culture. They found that people who showeda greater inclination to acculturate to the global culture (either throughintegration or assimilation) were better educated, had been more exposed tomass-mediated events, were more exposed to vicarious mass-migration, andhad more admiration for other countries.

Antecedents of national cultureThe antecedents of a national culture have attracted little systematic attention.Why is one country high on individualism and another country high onuncertainty avoidance? Which socioeconomic, geographic, historical, and otherfactors are underlying causes of the differences between countries in nationalculture? Different authors have examined this issue but the mostcomprehensive investigation was carried out by Hofstede (1980). He conductedcorrelation analyses and provided numerous speculations about the origins ofcross-national differences. Hofstede correlated his four dimensions with sixeconomic, geographic and demographic variables, among others. GNP/capitaand latitude (a proxy for climate) showed the strongest relations. GNP/capitawas negatively correlated with power distance (r = ±0.65, p < 0.001) anduncertainty avoidance (r = ±0.30, p < 0.05), and positively correlated withindividualism (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). Thus, the richer a country, the moreindividualistic the country is and the lower it rates on power distance anduncertainty avoidance. Wealth makes people independent.

Latitude was negatively correlated with power distance (r = ±0.65, p < 0.001)and masculinity (r = ±0.31, p < 0.05), and positively correlated withindividualism (r = 0.75, p < 0.001). Hofstede argued that colder climatespromote cultural individualism and lower power distance because survival insuch climes is hypothesized to require greater personal initiative. The rationalefor the correlation with masculinity is less clear. Recently, Parker andTavassoli (1997, 2000) developed a detailed argument concerning the effect ofclimate on national culture, and on individualism in particular through thelimiting and motivating influence of climate on the type of social processes(amount of time spent outdoors, which in colder climes is much less) andeconomic activities.

Another antecedent is religion. Hofstede (1980) found that the ratio ofCatholics (versus Protestants) in a country is negatively related toindividualism (r = ±0.63, p < 0.001), and positively related to power distance


40

(r = 0.68, p < 0.001), uncertainty avoidance (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), andmasculinity (r = 0.40, p < 0.05). The correlations with the first three dimensionsare consistent with the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, thecertainty it offers in its teachings and rituals, and the relative de-emphasis ofpersonal responsibility (compared to Protestant denominations). It is alsoconsistent with McClelland (1961). The correlation with masculinity is lessobvious and may be spurious.

In what might be one of the most rigorous theory-driven studies onantecedents of national culture, Triandis et al. (1990) proposed a detailed set ofhypotheses concerning the antecedents of national-cultural individualism.They hypothesize that affluence and urbanism have a positive effect on thedegree of individualism, while the presence of larger families and the greaterimportance of agriculture have a negative effect. Steenkamp et al. (1999) testedthese hypotheses for a sample of 11 EU countries, and found that they werelargely supported. A country's rating on the individualism dimensioncorrelated 0.54 (p < 0.05) with GNP/capita corrected for purchasing power, 0.66(p < 0.05) with the degree of urbanization, ±0.29 (p = 0.19) with the number ofoccupants per dwelling, and ±0.76 (p < 0.01) with the proportion of theworkforce working in agriculture.

Schwartz and Bardi (1997) examined the influence of the political system onnational culture. They found that the systematic differences between Westernand Eastern Europe could be well explained by the influences of adaptation toCommunism in Eastern Europe. Alternative explanations, such as differencesin economic development, religion, and earlier history, were examined butproved to be less strong and consistent predictors.

Although a number of valuable insights have been obtained, research onthe antecedents of national culture suffers from at least two weaknesses.First, all explanations, while valuable in their own right, are piecemeal. Thereis no rigorous, comprehensive theory explaining cultural variation acrossnations. Parker and Tavassoli's (1997, 2000) work on physioeconomics is animportant step in this direction and deserves further attention. However, itcannot easily explain large cultural differences between countries that aregeographically close (e.g. Belgium and The Netherlands). Second, the causalrelation between antecedents and culture is not always clear cut. Consider thehigh correlation between GNP/capita and individualism. It is unclear whetheran individualistic culture stimulates wealth ± as neoclassical economistswould argue ± or that wealthier societies become more individualistic, sincethe economic security provided by the group becomes less important ± assome sociologists would maintain. This argument may be less pertinent forreligion or climate. However, one may wonder why Protestantism caught onin particular parts of Europe in the first place. It is not unlikely that thoseparts were more individualistic. Reverse causation for climate is not possible,but one cannot rule out the possibility that part of the effect of climate is dueto its effect on the socio-economic environment. As such, the effect of climate


41

may be indirect, which still calls for identification and examination of themediating socio-economic variables.

ConclusionsIn the last 20 years, much important work on national culture has beenconducted in marketing and other social science disciplines. Much of theprogress in our field is due to fundamental research delineating basicdimensions of national culture. This work has been criticized for being toosimplistic. Culture would be too complex a phenomenon to be captured in a fewdimensions. Ii is agreed that no limited set of dimensions can exhaustivelydescribe the culture of societies in their full richness and complexity. However,one must concur with Schwartz and Ros (1995, p. 118) that `̀ resigning ourselvesto unique, thick descriptions for each group would preclude the comparativeapproach to which many cross-culturalists are committed. The ultimate goal isto find a limited set of dimensions that captures the most prominentdifferences, integrates multiple cultural features, and relates meaningfully tosocio-historical variables''.

There are numerous issues that could be addressed in future research. Oneissue is further work to develop a comprehensive set of cultural dimensions. Inthis contribution, I analyzed the communalities between the Hofstede andSchwartz schemes, but more work is necessary. In this and other analyses,industrialized countries dominated. It is still less clear whether thesedimensions adequately describe the national culture of less developedcountries. Certain facets also appear to be missing, such as the time perspectiveof a culture. Another issue is the temporal stability of culture. What is the rateof cultural change and what are its drivers? A sustained longitudinal studycould answer those questions and address the question of causality.

In previous research, the sampling of particular national cultures has beenoften a matter of convenience. When the goal of the study is to establishgeneralizability of one's findings across cultural contexts, this might be anacceptable procedure. However, when cultural factors are part of the theoreticalframework, and (one of) the goal(s) of the study is to test the effects of culture, itis important that the countries sampled differ sufficiently on the focaldimension(s). Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) have developed a method based onHofstede's framework to design more optimal (in the sense of large variation onthe dimensions of interest) multi-country samples.

Future research should also develop and test multi-layered theories andmodels, specifying meta-, national-, and micro-cultural, and individual-leveleffects and their interrelations (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Such models would leadto a better understanding of the role of culture in attitudes and behavior.Another research direction is to better understand acculturation processes.How do people react to other cultures and does this differ dependent on theacculturation mode (e.g. vicarious versus actual migration)? These and otherissues will keep international marketing researchers busy far into the twenty-first century.


42

Notes

1. S (H) stands for a dimension from the Schwartz (Hofstede) framework.

2. The relatively low score of the USA compared to most Western European countries on theautonomy and egalitarianism dimensions may be somewhat surprising. For the autonomydimension, this is largely due to the fact that Western European countries typically ratedhigher on intellectual autonomy and lower on conservatism than the USA. The differenceon the egalitarianism dimension is due to the high score of Western European countriesand the low score of the USA on harmony, while Western European countries typicallyalso rated higher on egalitarianism. It is outside the scope of this paper to speculate aboutthe socio-historical developments and variables that might explain these differences. SeeSchwartz and Ros (1995) for some ideas.

References

Alden, D.L., Hoyer, W.D. and Lee, C. (1993), `̀ Identifying global and culture-specific dimensionsof humor in advertising: a multinational analysis'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, April,pp. 64-75.

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999a), `̀ Brand positioning through advertisingin Asia, North America, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture'', Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 75-87.

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999b), `̀ Global brand positioning andadvertising effectiveness: does acculturation to global consumer culture make adifference?'', paper presented at the AMA Summer Educators Conference, San Francisco,CA, 7-10 August.

Appadurai, A. (1990), `̀ Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy'', inFeatherstone, M. (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage,Newbury Park, CA, pp. 295-310.

Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University ofMinnesota Press, Minneapolis, MI.

Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (1999), Response Styles in Marketing Research: ACross-National Investigation, working paper, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia,PA.

Berry, J.W. and Sam, D.L. (1997), `̀ Acculturation and adaptation'', in Berry, J.W., Segall, M.H. andKagitcibasi, C. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behaviorand Applications, 2nd ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 291-326.

Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M. and Bujaki, M. (1989), `̀ Acculturation attitudes inplural societies'', Applied Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 185-206.

Dawar, N. and Parker, Ph.M. (1994), `̀ Marketing universals: consumers' use of brand name, price,physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality'', Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 81-95.

Fernandez, D.R., Carlson, D.S., Stepina, L.P. and Nicholson, J.D. (1997), `̀ Hofstede's countryclassification 25 years later'', Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 43-54.

Gordon, M.M. (1964), Assimilation in American Life, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Hannerz, U. (1990), `̀ Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture'', in Featherstone, M. (Ed.), GlobalCulture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 237-51.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values,Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London.

Hoppe, M.H. (1990), `̀ A comparative study of country eÂlites: international differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for international management training


43

and development'', doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,Chapel Hill, CA.

Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (1999), `̀ Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective onintrinsic motivation'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 349-66.

Jun, S., Ball, A.D. and Gentry, J.W. (1993), `̀ Modes of consumer acculturation'', in McAlister, L.and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 20, Association forConsumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 76-82.

Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G.M. and Harris, J. (1993), `̀ Consumer tipping: a cross-country study'', Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 478-88.

McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Free Press, New York, NY.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), `̀ Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,and motivation'', Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.

Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), `̀ National culture and new product development: Anintegrative review'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, January, pp. 61-72.

Parker, Ph.M. and Tavassoli, N.T. (1997), Physioeconomic Theories of Culture and Consumption,working paper, INSEAD.

Parker, Ph.M. and Tarassoli, N.T. (2000), `̀ Homeostasis and consumer behavior across countries'',International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-53.

Ricks, D.A. (1993), Blunders in International Business, Blackwell, Cambridge.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), `̀ Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review andsynthesis'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54.

Roth, M.S. (1995), `̀ The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brandimage strategies'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, May, pp. 163-75.

Schwartz, S.H. (1994), `̀ Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of value'', inKim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism andCollectivism: Theory, Method and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119.

Schwartz, S.H. (1997), `̀ Values and culture'', in Munro, D., Carr, S. and Schumaker, J. (Eds),Motivation and Culture, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 69-84.

Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (1997), `̀ Influences of adaptation to communist rule on valuepriorities in eastern Europe'', Political Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 385-410.

Schwartz, S.H. and Ros, M. (1995), `̀ Values in the West: a theoretical and empirical challenge tothe individualism-collectivism cultural dimension'', World Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2,pp. 91-122.

Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (2001), `̀ The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: avoiding thesample design pit in cross-cultural business studies'', Journal of International BusinessStudies, forthcoming.

Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social Psychology across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives,Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA.

Smith, P.B. and Schwartz, S.H. (1997), `̀ Values,'' in Berry, J.W., Segall, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C.(Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications,2nd ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 77-118.

Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996), `̀ National culture and the values oforganizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 countries'', Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27, March, pp. 231-64.

Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), `̀ A cross-national investigation intothe individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness'', Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 63, April, pp. 55-69.


44

ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1999), `̀ International market segmentationbased on consumer-product relations'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36,February, pp. 1-17.

Triandis, H.C., McCusker, Ch. and Hui, C.H. (1990), `̀ Multimethod probes of individualism andcollectivism'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1006-20.

Tse, D.K., Lee, K-H., Vertinsky, I. and Wehrung, D.A. (1988), `̀ Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in internationalmarketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, October, pp. 81-95.

Wallendorf, M. and Reilly, M.D. (1983), `̀ Ethnic migration, assimilation, and consumption'',Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, December, pp. 292-302.

Wedel, M., ter Hofstede, F. and Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (1998), `̀ Mixture model analysis of complexsamples'', Journal of Classification, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 225-44.

Documents

steenkamp 2001