Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23:193210, 2011 Copyright c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0896-1530 print

/ 1528-7068 online DOI: 10.1080/08961530.2011.578059

Measuring Hofstedes Five Dimensions of Cultural Values at the Individual Level: Development and Validation of CVSCALE
Boonghee Yoo Naveen Donthu Tomasz Lenartowicz

ABSTRACT. Hofstedes (1980 and 2001) renowned ve-dimensional measure of cultural values is
the overwhelmingly dominant metric of culture. His measure has been used as a contextual variable, but it is often required to directly measure cultural values for individual consumers or managers. The purpose of this research is to respond to the call for developing a psychometrically sound measure of Hofstedes culture at the individual level. Past research in this area has developed a scale for only one of Hofstedes dimensions, a highly work-oriented scale, or a scale with poor reliability. By overcoming every major weakness of past studies, this research offers CVSCALE, a 26-item ve-dimensional scale of individual cultural values that assesses Hofstedes cultural dimensions at the individual level. The scale shows adequate reliability, validity, and across-sample and across-national generalizability.

KEYWORDS.

Geert Hofstede, culture, cultural values, scale development, individual level, masculinity/femininity, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism/individualism, long-term orientation, power distance

INTRODUCTION
Imagine that a company, which is very successful in North America, decides to introduce a new product in India. Ann Hopkins (MBA Stanford), a resident of California since birth, is assigned the task of preparing a strategy to enter India. Through research, Ann, a brand manager of the company, nds that Indians are culturally

different from her customers in North America so she decides to adapt her strategy accordingly. She learns that India is characterized as a collectivistic and masculine culture (Hofstede 2001). Based on this information she prepares a strategy for Indians. She knows that word of mouth is very important in such collectivist cultures and that mass media advertising is not very effective. The approach used by Ann Hopkins in this

Boonghee Yoo is Associate Professor of Marketing and International Business in the Frank G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA. Naveen Donthu is Katherine S. Bernhardt Research Professor of Marketing in the J. Mack Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Tomasz Lenartowicz is Associate Professor of International Business in the Department of Management Programs in the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Address correspondence to Boonghee Yoo, Department of Marketing and International Business, Frank G. Zarb School of Business, Hofstra University, 131 Weller Hall, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
193

194

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

hypothetical situation is real. Many corporate executives face this situation everyday as they enter emerging markets or target international consumers they are not very familiar with. However, any expert on India will tell us that this approach is not likely to succeed as many Indians would characterize themselves as very individualistic and not masculine-oriented. Blindly looking at national culture and using that to target individual consumers may not work. Corporate managers such as Ann Hopkins should realize that equating the stereotypical culture of a country directly with all citizens of the country would be misleading. While culture is dened at the national level (e.g., collectivism), whether an individual shows such a cultural orientation consistent with the national culture needs to be measured (e.g., Does this person show a collectivistic orientation?). This concern is more true when a country consists of a heterogeneous population with different cultural backgrounds. The concept of national culture has been very useful for the study of nations and societies. However, in managerial situations, the reection of culture at the individual level is more important and relevant (see Kamakura and Novak 1992; Kamakura and Mazzon 1991). Accordingly, a strong need has been raised to measure culture at the individual level. Business efforts would be most effective when such a measure is developed and applied to individuals (Farley and Lehmann 1994).

THE DEMAND TO MEASURE HOFSTEDES METRIC OF CULTURE AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

Hofstedes (1980, 2001) ve-dimensional measure of culture has been the overwhelmingly dominant metric of culture. According to him, power distance is the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally. Uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations. Individualism pertains to societies in which the ties between

individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family. Masculinity represents the dominant male sex role pattern in the vast majority of both traditional and modern societies. Long-term orientation refers to longterm versus short-term orientation toward the future. Hofstedes metric has been popular for several reasons. First, its cultural dimensions fully cover and extend major conceptualizations of culture developed through decades. Through a thorough review of culture literature, Clark (1990) insisted that there are many similarities among the different typologies of culture, and their dimensions are well captured in Hofstedes typology. Soares, Farhangmehr, and Shoham (2007) also conrmed the relevance of the Hofstede cultural dimensions to international business and consumer behavior through a comprehensive review of related literature. Second, Hofstedes dimensions were empirically developed. While many other cultural constructs remained in the conceptualization stage, Hofstede (1980) identied the cultural dimensions using a survey of about 100,000 IBM employees in 66 countries, excluding then-Communist and Third World countries. Third, social sciences and cross-cultural studies have heavily replicated Hofstedes typology and found it to be the most important theory of culture types (Chandy and Williams 1994; Sndergaard 1994). According to the Social Science Citation Index, a total of 2,700 refereed journal articles have cited Hofstedes work (Hofstede 2001). Using Hofstedes metric, researchers have found meaningful relationships between national culture and important demographic, geographic, economic, and political indicators of a society (Kale and Barnes 1992). This famous metric has been widely accepted and applied at both country and individual levels in cross-cultural studies. Examples of using it particularly at the individual level include exploring consumer perception on antismoking Web sites (Paek, Yu, and Bae 2009), ethical norms (Paul, Roy, and Mukhopadhyay 2006), market segmentation (Kale 1995), negotiation behavior (Volkema 2004), personality and transformational leadership (Shao and Webber 2006), consumer moral ideologies (Swaidan, Rawwas,

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

195

and Vitell 2008), package design (Limon, Kahle, and Orth 2009), and consumer ethnocentrism (Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2009), to name a few. However, unlike in typical consumer research where a metric is administered to an individual to accurately measure his or her differences from others, Hofstedes metric has been used in such a way that individuals are equally assigned Hofstedes national culture indices by their national identity. For instance, Aaker and Lee (2001) treated all Chinese as collectivists and all Americans as individualists. Dawar and Parker (1994) grouped participants in their study based on national identity and assigned Hofstedes national indices to them to examine the effect of culture on consumer behaviors. This tradition is very acceptable when the unit of analysis is a country (or culture is used as a contextual variable), but it is not appropriate when a study examines the effect of an individuals cultural orientation. By measuring individual cultural orientations and not equating them to the national culture, researchers can avoid the ecological fallacy that occurs when ecological or country-level relationships are interpreted as if they are applied to individuals. Using Hofstedes measures as a contextual variable has been a tradition. It has its own benet and would continue as a mainstream use of the scale. But if someone needs to assess Hofstedes cultural dimensions at the individual level, s/he would wish to have an alternative (e.g., like Ann Hopkins in the vignette of this study). It is often necessary to measure culture at an individual level (e.g., for countries with heterogeneous population, or for individual-level cultural market segmentation). Consequently, there has been a strong demand to develop a psychometrically sound measure of Hofstedes culture at the individual level. This research represents a step in that direction. In this article we develop a scale to assess Hofstedes cultural dimensions at the individual level (hereafter referred to as CVSCALEIndividual Cultural Values Scale). There exists an enormous diversity of culture among members of any nation. Given todays heterogeneity and mobility of the members of a nation and worldwide communication channels,

assigning the country-level culture score to every member of the society becomes less meaningful. Our scale will benet business researchers and practitioners who deal with individual consumers across cultures. Our scale will make it possible to link individual attitudes and behaviors to individual-level cultural orientations because the data about cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors come from the same primary sources (individuals survey responses), without using Hofstedes metric (secondary source) and linking it to individual attitudes and behavior (primary data).

Methodological Troubles with the Hofstede Metric at the Individual Level

Researchers have tried to use Hofstedes metric to measure individual cultural orientations, but they found quite a few methodological difculties with the metric. Specically, the biggest problem was a psychometrically disappointing result (see Robinson 1983; Sndergaard 1994; Triandis 1982). In fact, when he analyzed his own data at the individual level, Hofstede (1980) himself found a weak correlation matrix among cultural dimensions, whereas it was the opposite at the country level. Similarly, Hoppe (1990) also found in his 17-country replication work of Hofstedes metric that Hofstedes metric was stable at the country level but not at all at the individual level. Spector, Cooper, and Sparks (2001) also thoroughly evaluated the psychometric properties of Hofstedes latest metric, the Values Survey Module 94 or VSM 94 (Hofstede 1994). They administered the scale to about 7,000 employees from 23 nations covering Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas to evaluate reliability and construct validity of the ve cultural dimensions. They found unacceptably low reliability at the individual level. Of the 115 combinations (5 dimensions 23 nations), only 13 achieved the .70 reliability alpha that is recommended as minimally satisfactory reliability (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). Three dimensions (power distance, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance) had no alphas above 60. So Hofstedes metric did not hold at the individual level. Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2005), after rigorously testing the Hofstede

196

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

metric with the four-nation sample, found a disappointing factor structure and reliability. They concluded, The unidimensional measures of national culture do not perform as well as multidimensional measures and that additional work in this area is needed to accurately capture psychological, individual-level cultural traits (202). Blodgett, Bakir, and Rose (2008) also examined the reliability and validity of Hofstedes cultural framework at the individual consumer level. However, the reliability of each dimension was low, and the factor analyses did not produce a coherent structure. They raised a need to develop a reliable and valid measure that captures the richness of Hofstedes cultural dimensions at the individual level. They predicted the usefulness of such a measure in segmenting the global market as well as understanding more precisely why individuals from different regions respond differently to various business strategies.

Past Efforts to Develop a Scale to Measure the Hofstede Metric at the Individual Level
It should be noted that there have been continuous efforts to develop a scale to measure Hofstedes cultural values at the individual level. Two observations can be made about these past efforts. First, a scale was typically developed to address one cultural dimension at a time. Examples are individualism and collectivism by Triandis (1995) and long-term orientation by Bearden, Money, and Nevins (2006). It might be argued that Hofstedes metric can be replaced by those scales developed independently. But this approach does not warrant conceptual conformity to the denition of each cultural dimension originally meant by Hofstede or methodological uniformity among the scales that were developed by different authors for different purposes and constraints. In addition, when independently developed scales are used together to study the effect of all Hofstedes dimensions of culture simultaneously, unidimensionality of each scale might be lost through heavy cross-loadings and lack of discriminant validity among the independent scales. Even worse, by focusing on one cultural dimension, researchers identify multisubdimensions, which typically end up

with too many items. For instance, the INDCOL (Hui 1984; Triandis 1995) is a 32-item, eightsubscale instrument that measures individualism and collectivism alone. The LTO is an eight-item, two-subscale measure of long-term orientation (Bearden et al. 2006). Such scales serve conceptual depth but not measurement parsimony. Second, little effort has been made to develop a scale that simultaneously embraces all ve dimensions shown in Hofstedes metric and applies to a broader context beyond management. For example, Dorfman and Howell (1988), who developed a 22-item scale to measure Hofstedes (1980) four cultural dimensions, overlooked long-term orientation. Although the scale showed satisfactory reliability and validity, it was worker-oriented, limiting the use of it to human resources and corporate leadership. Conceptually, Hofstedes cultural dimensions are general values that inuence all behavioral domains. However, as the measure items are phrased in a work context, those who are not employed might have a hard time relating them to their daily life experiences. For example, fulltime homemakers, students, independent consultants, self-employed entrepreneurs, unemployed people, and retirees need a scale that additionally embraces a nonwork context. Similarly, Erdem, Swait, and valenzuela (2006) developed a 13item scale of Hofstedes culture dimensions, but the scale, although reliable, measured only three dimensions (collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance). Another exception was Furrer, Liu, and Sudharshan (2000), who developed a set of 20 items to measure all the ve dimensions. But psychometric properties of the scale were found to be very poor as it used Hofstedes survey items directly for individuals; the reliability of each dimension ranged from .26 to .51 (Soares et al. 2007). The latest effort was Sharmas (2010) 40-item scale that measures Hofstedes culture at the individual level. The scale was psychometrically sound, establishing the validity, reliability, and crosscultural measurement equivalence. However, by reconceptualizing Hofstedes culture as 10 dimensions of personal cultural orientations, the scale lost the original 5-dimensional model of Hofstedes concept of culture and made

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

197

it difcult and confusing to actually measure Hofstedes original dimensions. In summary, the CVSCALE proposed in this article would be a scale that measures Hofstedes ve cultural dimensions at the individual level for a more general context while achieving satisfactory psychometric properties.

DEVELOPING AND VALIDATING THE CVSCALE

Following the research stream previously discussed, the purpose of this study was to develop a measurement tool that assesses Hofstedes ve dimensions of culture at the individual level. The scale, named CVSCALE, must be psychometrically sound so that it can be condently used for measuring individual cultural orientations.

Item Generation and Testing

To generate an appropriate pool of items, we rst chose and modied items from the HERMES values questions, which were Hofstedes original questions (see Hofstede, 1980, 403410), the Values Survey Module 1994 (an improved and shortened version of the HERMES questions: Hofstede, 2001, 494497), and Hofstedes other works. We also considered items from non-Hofstede works when we observed them carry the core meanings of the constructs as dened by Hofstede. As for long-term orientation, we used the Chinese Culture Connections (1987) original items as they had been designed for general contexts. Hofstede (2001, 491) developed the power distance index for a country, using a formula based on three questions selected after examining their relationships to other related items in the survey. We modied Hofstedes original items to t general contexts. For example, our modied item I prefer a superior who consults with me before reaching a decision was meant to measure the consultative tendency of high-position people. Second, we adopted some of Bochner and Heskeths (1994) items. They validated Hofstedes power distance and individualism scales in a single multicultural work setting using 263 workers from 28 different

countries employed in a large bank. Third, we transformed Hofstedes power distance denition into items covering a larger domain of the construct as they delivered the core meanings of power distance. Hofstedes (2001, 491) formula for the uncertainty avoidance index was based on three items. We modied the items; one read I feel comfortable in ambiguous situations and with unfamiliar risks. We also added other candidate items to more closely reect Hofstedes denition of the dimension. Examples are: Uncertainty in life is a threat that must be overcome, I prefer questions with the right answers, and I am precise and punctual. Hofstede (2001, 492) created the individualism index based on the factor loadings of work goal items. As Hofstedes work goals are too work-related to serve broad situations, we generated new items by reecting Hofstedes denition of the dimension and other relevant studies (Hui 1984; Triandis, Bontempo, and Villareal 1988). In addition, we referenced Triandis and colleagues (1993) items, which found that independence, personal competence, and separation from in-groups were strong etic items for individualism. Example items included I would rather struggle through a personal problem by myself than discuss it with my friends, Individuals should be judged on their own merits, not on the company they keep, and I prefer to work in a team or a pair rather than alone. The masculinity/femininity dimension, originally labeled social-ego in reference to the dominant sex-role pattern, represents male assertiveness, and social represents female nurturance. Hofstedes (2001, 492) masculinity index was also comprised of the factor scores of work goal items. Because Hofstedes items were highly work-related, we generated other modied items. Examples of the items include Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough. Similar to Hofstede (1991, 2001), we used long-term orientation scale items developed by Bond and others (Chinese Culture Connection, 1987). The original label used in the Bond study was Confucian work dynamism to reect Confucian work ethics. Each long-term orientation item was evaluated in the format, How

198

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

important is (value x) to you? This dimensions items included thrift; persistence; a sense of shame; order of relationships by status; observation of this order; personal steadiness and stability; preservation of appearances; respect for tradition; and reciprocation of greetings, favors, and gifts. In addition to other items, we used the original items for this cultural dimension. The original pool of 230 items was carefully reviewed for their t to corresponding dimensions, and 125 items were selected by us and other scholars who were familiar with Hofstedes typology of culture. Then a questionnaire was developed by organizing the items in a random order and adding other questions, including demographic questions. The cultural orientation items were evaluated using 5-point Likert-type scales anchored as 1 = very unimportant and 5 = very important for the long-term orientation dimension, and 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree for the remaining dimensions. The questionnaire was administered to undergraduate college students in the U.S. to check for wording. Participation was optional. A total of 196 participants reviewed the items, and we modied the wording of the items based on participants suggestions to enhance face validity and clarity in meaning. After eliminating redundant items, 86 newly worded items were administered to another sample of 116 American undergraduate students to obtain items that provide decent reliability. After a series of item-selection procedures, satisfactory reliability, ranging from .74 to .91, was achieved for the cultural dimensions. As a result, we retained a total of 39 reliable candidate items to enter the main scale development process (9 for power distance, 6 for uncertainty avoidance, 6 for masculinity, 8 for collectivism, and 11 for long-term orientation).

Korea and the United States have been often selected for cross-cultural research because they represent East and West (e.g., Choi, Nisbett, and Norenzayan 1999; Dubinsky et al. 1994). A Korean version of the questionnaire was prepared based on the English version. Three bilinguists translated it back into English, and we kept modifying the Korean version to ensure translation equivalence until the translators were satised with it (Werner and Campbell 1972). We administered the Korean version to Koreans in Korea and the English version to Americans and KoreanAmericans in the U.S. Non-U.S. citizens were excluded from the American sample to maintain homogeneous backgrounds in the American group. A total of 1,530 eligible responses (577 Americans, 320 KoreanAmericans, and 633 Koreans) were obtained. Overall, each samples characteristics appeared to match the college population characteristics well. Since the cross-cultural literature suggests that age, gender, and marital status may affect measures of cultural orientations (Lenartowicz and Roth 1999), we tested these variables for their confounding inuence. Initial data analysis showed that the correlation between age and each cultural dimension was small, ranging from .01 (nonsignicant) to.06 (p < .05). Hofstede (2001) reported a signicant gender effect on masculinity, which our data (p < .001) also conrmed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

We analyzed the data from the three samples separately and compared them. Then we analyzed the pooled sample by the Leung and Bond technique (1989), called an individual level multicultural factor analysis. The technique has two steps. The rst step is withinsubject standardization that standardizes scores or responses across items for each individual. This step removes the cultural positioning effect, which is the relative location of the responses made by the average individual from a particular culture (Leung and Bond 1989, 141). The second step is within-culture standardization, in which variables have a zero mean and unity standard deviation within each culture. This step eliminates the patterning effect of culture.

Scale Development
Using new samples independent of the previous ones, we tested, puried, and nalized the items, producing CVSCALE. We surveyed American, KoreanAmerican, and South Korean undergraduate students in an effort to develop a scale with cross-cultural generalizability. South

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

199

We conducted factor analysis using orthogonal rotation for the items, and ve distinct factors emerged in the pooled sample and in each of the three individual samples. Careful step-by-step elimination of weakly or cross-loaded items resulted in the CVSCALE, a 26-item scale of ve cultural orientation factors (see the appendix), which explained 44.5% of the total variance for the pooled data (49.0% for Americans, 47.9% for KoreanAmericans, and 40.7% for Koreans). This was similar to Hofstedes (2001) countrylevel analysis in which 49% of the total variance was explained. Factor analysis using oblique rotation produced similar factor patterns, conrming the discriminant and convergent validity of the measures (Rummel 1970). All items loaded highly on the appropriate factors, and no item loaded on more than one factor, supporting the independence of the constructs and providing strong empirical evidence of their validity.

collectivism, .70 for long-term orientation, and .68 for masculinity. The reliability was modest, but it was considered satisfactory in this stage of scale development, and signicantly higher reliability is usually achieved in the scalevalidation phase because only the nal items (i.e., a fewer number) are administered without all other deleted items (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).

Validating the CVSCALE Validating the Measurement Model of the Scale

The CVSCALE was tested for a variety of validity, using another set of samples. To validate CVSCALE, we obtained 433 responses (213 from American adults and 220 from Korean adults). The two samples were not different in gender composition (60% male in both samples: 2 = .72) or age (34.1 years each for Americans and Koreans: t value = .04) but, as expected, very different in personal income (US$32,334 for Americans and US$18,624 for Koreans: t value = 9.77). As reported in the top of table 2, the CVSCALE was highly reliable in both adult samples, indicating the credibility of the scale. The reliability ranged from .79 (longterm orientation) to .91 (power distance) for Americans and from .78 (long-term orientation) to .89 (collectivism) for Koreans. The ve-dimensional measurement model of the CVSCALE exhibited an excellent level of t. Specically, the models 2 with 289 degrees of freedom was 496.27 for Americans and 416.34 for Koreans. RMSEA was .058 for Americans and .039 for Koreans. CFI and TLI were .91 and .94 respectively for both samples. The item loadings to their constructs ranged from .43 (t value = 5.97) to .85 (t value = 15.10) for Americans and .56 (t value = 4.71) to .87 (t value = 14.24) for Koreans.

Conrmatory Factor Analysis

The clean factor patterns shown in the exploratory factor analysis were consistently found in conrmatory factor analysis for the pooled sample (see table 1). We conducted conrmatory factor analysis to detect and conrm the clear multidimensionality of the ve cultural dimensions as asserted by Hofstede. A completely standardized solution produced by the LISREL 8 maximum likelihood method (J oreskog and S orbom 1993) showed that all items loaded on their corresponding constructs. Demonstrating adequate convergent validity of all items, the lowest t-value was 12.22 for LT3 on long-term orientation. Also, the overall t of the measurement model was excellent: 2 (df = 289) = 714.14; goodness-of-t index (GFI) = .96; adjusted goodness-of-t index (AGFI) = .96; root mean square residual (RMR) = .033; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .031; normed t index (NFI) = .90; comparative t index (CFI) = .94; and incremental t index (IFI) = .94. Despite the large number of items considered, no substantial departures from unidimensionality were observed. The composite reliability estimates, which are evidence of convergent validity (Fornell and Larker 1981), were acceptable: .62 for power distance, .71 for uncertainty avoidance, .76 for

Testing the Measurement Invariance of the Scale

We subsequently performed an invariance test for the measurement model of CVSCALE, which is useful in examining the equivalence of a factorial measurement across multiple samples (see Yoo 2002). In each step of the invariance test

200

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 1. Conrmatory Factor Analysis of the CVSCALE: The Pooled Sample (N = 1,530)
Factor Loadingsa Items PO1 PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5 UN1 UN2 UN3 UN4 UN5 CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 CO6 LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 LT5 LT6 MA1 MA2 MA3 MA4 Power Distance 0.43 (13.69)b 0.48 (15.50) 0.54 (17.26) 0.58 (18.48) 0.44 (13.99) Uncertainty Avoidance Collectivism Long-Term Orientation Masculinity

0.46 (16.08) 0.68 (25.02) 0.65 (23.72) 0.50 (17.98) 0.58 (21.13)

0.53 (20.24) 0.49 (18.50) 0.81 (33.49) 0.75 (30.71) 0.45 (16.79) 0.44 (16.36)

0.42 (14.82) 0.35 (12.22) 0.53 (19.12) 0.57 (20.85) 0.54 (19.32) 0.73 (27.12)

0.58 (20.39) 0.62 (21.52) 0.71 (24.46) 0.43 (14.56) Masculinity

Intercorrelations of Dimensions CVSCALE Dimensions Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Collectivism Long-Term Orientation Masculinity
a

Power Distance 1. 0.12 (3.11)b 0.00 (0.06) 0.14 (3.68) 0.33 (9.11)

Uncertainty Avoidance 1. 0.13 (3.97) 0.38 (12.10) 0.03 (0.97)

Collectivism

Long-Term Orientation

1. 0.08 (2.28) 0.15 (4.38)

1. 0.10 (2.70)

1.

Completely standardized solution; b t value.

we compared an unconstrained and a constrained model. In the unconstrained model, every element of the measurement model is specied to vary across samples; some elements of the model are specied to be the same across samples in the constrained model (Bollen 1989). If the chi-square t difference between these models is insignicant, the constrained elements are invariant across samples. The rst step in our testing hierarchy was to assess the invariance of factor loadings (i.e., x ). Equality of factor loadings (i.e., metric invariance) is of more importance than the equality of measurement

error variances (i.e., ) or the equality of the covariance matrices of the latent variables (i.e., ). Metric invariance is a minimal requirement for testing cross-cultural invariance because it is the evidence that cross-cultural subjects interpret and respond to the measures in an equivalent manner (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Although full measurement invariance is desirable, such a strict invariant model is practically impossible and scientically unrealistic (Steenkamp and Baumgartner). Due to the high ratio of the number of items to the sample size, we analyzed each dimension

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

201

TABLE 2. Validation and Invariance Test of the CVSCALE: American and Korean Adults
Reliabilty CVSCALE Dimensions Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Collectivism Long-Term Orientation Masculinity Americans (n = 213) .91 .88 .85 .79 .84 2 496.27 416.34 Koreans (n = 220) .79 .79 .89 .78 .84 Results of the Measurement Model Americans (n = 213) Koreans (n = 220) 2 /df 1.72 1.44 Mean (Standard Deviation) Americans (n = 213) 2.10 (.93) 3.71 (.78) 3.05 (.75) 3.97 (.60) 2.25 (.96) Koreans (n = 220) 2.00 (.58) 3.96 (.48) 2.71 (.72) 4.07 (.42) 3.00 (.76)

t value
1.31 3.98 4.80 1.99 8.98

df 289 289

RMSEA .058 .039

RMR .067 .055

GFI .85 .88 2

TLI .90 .93

CFI .91 .94 2 3.50 60.04 64.34 1.56 34.26 36.50 5.47 23.73 24.45 6.02 14.28 14.52 2.41 5.24 5.24

IFI .91 .94

Simultaneous Tests of Invariance for the Single-Construct Measurement Models between Americans and Koreans

df
10 14 19 20 10 14 19 20 18 23 29 30 18 23 29 30 4 7 11 12

df
4 9 10 4 9 10 5 11 12 5 11 12 3 7 8

Power Distance The unconstrained model The constrained model with The constrained model with The constrained model with Uncertainty Avoidance The unconstrained model The constrained model with The constrained model with The constrained model with Collectivism The unconstrained model The constrained model with The constrained model with The constrained model with Long-Term Orientation The unconstrained model The constrained model with The constrained model with The constrained model with Masculinity The unconstrained model The constrained model with The constrained model with The constrained model with

invariant x and invariant x, , and invariant

x

25.36 28.86 85.40 89.70 38.43 39.99 72.69 74.93 90.35 95.82 114.08 114.80 55.69 61.71 69.97 70.21 2.97 5.38 8.21 8.21

invariant x and invariant x, , and invariant

x

invariant x and invariant x, , and invariant

x

invariant x and invariant x, , and invariant

x

invariant x and invariant x, , and invariant

x

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001; p < .0001.

of the CVSCALE separately for its crosssample invariance. Thus, each dimension had its own unconstrained model for the invariance test. As shown in the bottom of table 2, each unconstrained model yielded an excellent t to the data as expected from the good t of the full measurement model discussed previously. The chi-square t index ranged from 2.97 (masculinity) to 90.35 (collectivism) for the unconstrained

models. For the constrained model, the chisquare t for the x invariance ranged from 5.38 (masculinity) to 95.82 (collectivism). To check whether the factor loadings were invariant across samples, the unconstrained model was compared with the constrained model in which the factor loadings were specied to be the same between American and Korean samples. As reported in table 2, for every dimension, the t difference, ranging from 2.41 for 3 degrees of freedom

202

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

(masculinity) to 6.02 for 5 degrees of freedom (long-term orientation), was not signicant even at the .30 level. This strongly indicates that the factor structure is invariant between the American and Korean samples; therefore, CVSCALE can be compared meaningfully across samples thanks to the cross-cultural metric equivalence (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Next, we assessed the equality of in addition to x . We also were most interested in the equality of x . Then, the nal test determined whether all three parameter matrices ( x , , and ) were simultaneously invariant across samples. As shown in table 2, only two dimensions (long-term orientation and masculinity) had full measurement invariance, whereas the other three dimensions had metric invariance only. In summary, in this scale validation study of American and Korean nonstudent adults, the CVSCALE showed satisfactory reliability and metric invariance. As demonstrated in the sufcient invariance of the factor loadings, meaningful cross-cultural comparisons of the parameters become possible.

.76 and .70 for uncertainty avoidance; .85 and .76 for collectivism; .78 and .72 for long-term orientation; and .71 and .71 for masculinity. This high reliability in the new samples of different countries demonstrates further cross-national generalizability of the scale.

Nomological Validity of the CVSCALE

To evaluate the CVSCALEs nomological validity, we investigated the relationship of its individual dimensions to two relevant constructs: consumer ethnocentrism and attitudes toward marketing norms.

Consumer Ethnocentrism
Consumer ethnocentrism refers to the beliefs held by consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products (Shimp and Sharma 1987, 280). This construct has been examined as a leading factor explaining why consumers blindly favor domestic products over imports. We expect each cultural value is related to consumer ethnocentrism. Specically, collectivism is expected to be positively related to consumer ethnocentrism because collectivists are willing to sacrice personal interests for the countrys (a major ingroup) welfare by purchasing domestic products over foreign products. Consumers rated high on femininity, seeking harmony to avoid conict, are expected to support a harmonious coexistence of imports and domestic products and more willingly accept the imports. Thus femininity (masculinity) is expected to be negatively (positively) related to consumer ethnocentrism. People of strong uncertainty avoidance are more likely to perceive that an inux of imports creates uncertainty in the domestic economy by costing domestic jobs and threatening the industry stability. Intolerant with uncertainty in the future, they would resist the imports. Therefore, uncertainty avoidance is expected to be positively related to consumer ethnocentrism. People of high power distance, more willingly accepting injustice and power gaps in relationships, would be less likely to think about an equal and uniform treatment of imports in the domestic market. Thus, power distance is expected to be positively related to consumer ethnocentrism.

Validating the CVSCALE in Different Countries

In this additional validation study, we collected data from Brazil and Poland. According to Hofstede (2001), the national culture scores of Brazil are between American and Korean scores in all dimensions except for power distance, where Brazil is higher than both the U.S. and Korea. According to Nasierowski and Mikula (1998), Poland is higher in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity than both the U.S. and Korea and moderate in individualism between the U.S. and Korea. Using Brazilian Portuguese- and Polishlanguage versions of the questionnaire developed by following the same method described previously, we obtained 300 complete responses from Polish adults and 149 from Brazilian college students. The conrmatory factor analysis of the 26 CVSCALE items produced a clear pattern of ve dimensions for each sample. The reliability was satisfactory for both samples. Poles and Brazilians showed .84 and .79 reliability alpha respectively for power distance;

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

203

Long-term oriented consumers, preferring a dynamic market structure to a static one, are likely to welcome continuous changes caused by imports, which increases competition. People of long-term orientation, tolerating something seemingly different or unclear, are more likely to accept imports that are different from domestic products. Thus, long-term orientation is expected to be negatively related to consumer ethnocentrism. The full version of the 17-item CETSCALE (Shimp and Sharma 1987) was asked to measure consumer ethnocentrism. Data from the 213 adult American consumers (the sample used to validate the measurement model of the scale) were analyzed in this validation study. The analysis conrmed the expectations. Specically, consumer ethnocentrism was positively related to collectivism (r = .21, p < .01), masculinity (r = .35, p < .0001), and power distance (r = .29, p < .0001), and negatively related to long-term orientation (r = .20, p < .01). However, consumer ethnocentrism was not signicantly related to uncertainty avoidance (r = .08).

Attitudes toward the Marketing Norms

In the second nomological validity test, we examined the relationship between each dimension of CVSCALE and the attitudes toward marketing norms. Collectivism, susceptible to in-group inuences, loyal to in-group norms, and prone to harmony, is expected to be positively related to attitudes toward marketing norms. Preferring explicit rules and structured situations, people with strong uncertainty avoidance are also expected to show positive attitudes toward marketing norms. Masculine people value assertiveness and success, whereas feminine people value nurturance and harmony. Thus, they are more likely to emphasize job performance rather than process through marketing norms, which implies a negative relationship between masculinity and attitudes toward marketing norms. People of high power distance value centralization, formalization, authoritarian rule, tight control, and formal norms, accepting lack of autonomy and inequalities in power. Thus, power distance is expected to be positively related to attitudes toward marketing norms. Long-term oriented

people value ordering relationships by status and observing this order and avoid improper behaviors that can ruin their honor or reputation. Thus, they are expected to respect formal rules and conform to marketing norms. Attitudes toward marketing norms were measured through Vitell, Rallapalli, and Singhapakdis (1993) 24-item scale of marketing norms, which consisted of ve norms: price and distribution norms, product and promotion norms, obligation and disclosure norms, information and contract norms, and general honesty and integrity. A new sample of 200 American undergraduate students taking marketing classes volunteered for participation: 54% of them were male, and their average age was 22. The data analysis conrmed the expectations. Specically, attitudes toward each type of marketing norms were positively related to collectivism (ranging from r = .14, p < .05 to r = .30, p < .0001), uncertainty avoidance (from r = .39 to r = .46, p < .0001), and long-term orientation (from r = .18, p < .01 to r = .27, p < .001) and negatively related to masculinity (from r = .12, p < .10 to r = .34, p < .0001) and power distance (from r = .24, p < .01 to .37, p < .0001).

An Illustration of CVSCALE Usage: Global Market Segmentation

In segmenting individuals across countries, individual-centered cultural orientations can be more useful and meaningful than can countries or ethnic groups. Let us call the former individual-centered market segmentation and the latter country-centered market segmentation. Frequently, global market segmentation refers to the latter by grouping countries into a segment that scores similarly on Hofstedes nationalculture indices, and marketing strategies are developed to equally target all the people of the countries within the segment (Kale 1995). But to illustrate the usefulness of CVSCALE in global market segmentation, we conducted cluster analysis. For this purpose, we analyzed three samples of nonstudent adults: Americans (n = 213), Koreans (n = 220), and Poles (n = 300), whose data were used for scale validation tests. The U.S., South Korea, and Poland have developed very different cultures

204

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

with their own unique histories, geography, and languages. If such differences in national culture are signicant enough to inuence member citizens cultural orientations, country-centered segmentation must produce more distinct groupings than individual-centered segmentation. Segmentation variables were the ve dimensions of CVSCALE. According to hierarchical methods of cluster analysis, a threecluster solution was found optimal for the data because both the distance and the cubic clustering criterion between the nal three clusters suddenly jumped, much more than in any other cluster solution (Milligan and Cooper 1989). As reported in the top of table 3, the average CVSCALE score proles showed that segment 1 was higher in uncertainty avoidance and masculinity and segment 3 was higher in power distance, collectivism, and masculinity. Segment 2 maintained the lowest mean value in every dimension among the three segments. The CVSCALE mean differences among the three segments were highly signicant (p < .0001) in every dimension except for long-term orientation, which indicates the clear division among the segments and the usefulness of CVSCALE for market segmentation. Overall, segment 1 might be labeled masculine and uncertainty-avoiding consumers, segment 3 might be labeled power-distant and masculine consumers, and segment 2 might be labeled as weak power-distant and feminine individualist consumers. As reported at the bottom of table 3, slightly more than a half of Americans (62.4%) and Koreans (59.5%) belonged to segment 2 and segment 1 respectively, whereas Poles were divided almost equally across segments (37.7%, 36.7%, and 26.3%). Therefore, the derived clusters did not show a clear-cut match to the countries. In the country-centered segmentation, all citizens of each country were assigned uniformly to their country segment without consideration of their individual differences. As reected by the size of F value and its p value of the result, the difference among the three countries was not as signicant as that among the three segments. To further evaluate which segmentation method, individual- or country-centered, produces a more meaningful global segmentation, we performed

MANOVA for each method, in which the ve CVSCALE dimensions were collectively rather than singularly assessed, as done in ANOVAs. Both Wilkss Lambda and Roys greatest root value were much more signicant (F = 201.56 and 345.58 respectively, p < .0001) for the three segments identied by the individualcentered method than by the country-centered method (F = 22.99 and 34.02, p < .0001). The analysis conrmed that the mean vectors of the individual-centered segments were more signicantly different than those of the countrycentered segments.

Replication and Usage of the CVSCALE in a Few Other Studies

Although the current article is the very rst one that discusses the scale development process and rationale of CVSCALE, the scale has been used by scholars in many studies since it was rst invited for presentation at academic conferences (Yoo and Donthu 1998, 1999). Researchers adopted the scale to test their theories in which individual cultural orientations take a role, for example, on issues such as service-quality expectations (Donthu and Yoo 1998), marketing ethics (Yoo and Donthu 2002), and consumer ethnocentrism (Yoo and Donthu 2005). In those studies, the scale demonstrated satisfactory reliability and usefulness. Table 4 summarizes the reliability of the scale reported in a few other studies. As shown in the table, the scale achieved a satisfactory reliability in a variety of countries, including the UK, the U.S., Portugal, Australia, Thailand, Egypt, Hong Kong, the United Arab Emirates, and India, whose diversity exhibits the cross-country generalizability of the scale. The scale was also measured in a variety of sample typesstudents, females, professionals, employees, salespersonswhose diversity exhibits the cross-sample generalizability of the scale.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our study developed CVSCALE, a 26-item scale to assess an individuals cultural orientations as reected on Hofstedes (1980 and

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

205

TABLE 3. Individual-Centered Global Market Segmentation: Americans, Koreans, and Poles (Adults)
Segment Composition of Three-Cluster Solution: Mean and Standard Deviation Market Segments By Cultural Orientation Power Distance Uncertainty Avoidance Collectivism Long-Term Orientation Masculinity Descriptive Variables Age Ratio of Male Subjects Income (US$000) By Country Americans Koreans Poles Total

Segment 1 1.96 (.45) 3.93 (.53) 2.94 (73) 4.02 (.49) 3.43 (.51)

Segment 2 1.79 (.59) 3.72 (.68) 2.79 (.77) 3.91 (.57) 1.89 (.54)

Segment 3 3.34 (.58) 3.76 (.64) 3.24 (.73) 3.96 (.59) 3.50 (.75)

F value
447.84 9.02 18.49 2.54 656.56 7.17 31.75 6.34 Total 213 (100%) 220 (100%) 300 (100%) 733 (100%)

35.1 (9.6) 68% $16.1 (13.2) Membership 1 34 (16.0%) 131 (59.5%) 111 (37.0%) 276 (37.7%)

32.5 (6.4) 38% $20.1 (17.8) Membership 2 133 (62.4%) 66 (30.0%) 110 (36.7%) 309 (42.2%)

35.5 (10.0) 62% $15.7 (15.5) Membership 3 46 (21.6%) 23 (10.5%) 79 (26.3%) 148 (20.2%)

p < .05; p < .01; p < .001; p < .0001.

2001) renowned ve dimensions of culture. This tool allows consumer researchers and business practitioners to assess the cultural orientations of individuals and to use primary data instead of cultural stereotypes. CVSCALE exhibited appropriate reliability and validity. The surveyed four countries (the U.S., South Korea, Brazil, and Poland) do not share a common language, history, or ethnicity. Nevertheless, in those diverse samples, the 26-item ve-dimensional CVSCALE consistently achieved satisfactory psychometric properties. This is strong evidence that the scale can be used across countries. We also found that the measures were valid in student and nonstudent samples, which also indicates cross-sample generalizability. Such generalizability across sample types and countries was well demonstrated in other independent studies, 13 of which we discussed. The application of the proposed instrument in cross-cultural studies is extensive. A crosscultural study is most frequently designed to collect data on dependent variables (business managers or consumers behavior) at the individual level. The study typically extrapolates the independent variable (a cultural character-

istic) from some benchmark study or national identity of the sample. We argue that when data on dependent variables are collected, the cultural orientations of consumers or managers of the study should also be assessed. Then our instrument can be of help as it measures each individuals own cultural orientations, which may or may not reect their national culture. As demonstrated in the analysis of threecountry data, CVSCALE is very adequate for global market segmentation. Global product and brand managers will benet from the scale because they can nd equivalent market segments across countries based on consumer groupings showing similar cultural orientations. Then they can apply a similar business program to those equivalent consumer segments in different countries under the assumption that the segments responses would be similar across countries. For instance, a company may develop a new product that is targeted at very individualistic, high uncertainty-avoiding, and masculine-oriented consumers. Instead of identifying just two or three countries that meet this prole (using the popular Hofstede

206

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 4. Reliability of CVSCALE Reported in a Few Other Studies

Sources Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Study 4 Study 5 Countries (Sample Types) Portugal (Students) The UK (Students) Thailand and Australia (A pooled sample of students) The U.S. (MBA students) India (MBA students) The U.S. (Sales managers and salespersons) Australia (Anglo-Australian students) Australia (ChineseAustralian students) United Arab Emirates (Indian employees) United Arab Emirates (Egyptian employees) Hong Kong and the U.S. (Adult customers) Hong Kong and the U.S. (Service employees) India (Indian adult women) Australia (Indian adult women) Thailand (Students) The U.S. (Students) The U.S., Mexico, Australia, China, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Russia (Business students) India (Business students) The U.S. and Canada (Business students)

n
161 151 487 110 188 132 125 125 n.a. n.a. 349 349 42 44 1,098 186 1,910

PO .61 .78 .73 .78 .76 .65 .69 .62 .67 .60 .93 .90 >.70 >.70 .63 .85 .77

UN .69 .69 .80 .86 .81 .83 .67 .61 .65 .59 n.a. n.a. >.70 >.70 .81 .80 .86

CO .79 .72 .61 .84 .85 .67 .61 .70 .60 .68 .94 .93 >.70 >.70 .81 .78 .86

LT .55 .74 n.a. .61 .71 .59 .68 .69 .52 .66 n.a. n.a. >.70 >.70 .61 .68 n.a.

MA .74 .78 n.a. .84 .76 .68 .54 .67 .65 .67 n.a. n.a. >.70 >.70 .85 .84 .83

Study 6

Study 7

Study 8 Study 9 Study 10 Study 11

Study 12

290

n.a.

.78 .79

.83 .80

n.a.

.73 .77

292

n.a.

n.a.

Notes. Study 1. Soares et al. (2007); Study 2. Patterson, Cowley, and Prasongsukarn (2006); Study 3. Paul et al. (2006); Study 4. Smith (2004); Study 5. Kwok and Uncles (2005); Study 6. Alrawi and Jaber (2008); Study 7. Chan, Yim, and Lam (2010); Study 8. Adapa (2008); Study 9. Prasongsukarn (2009); Study 10. Yoo and Totten (2005); Study 11. Schumann et al. (2010); and Study 12. Ganguly et al. (2010). n.a. = Not available as it was not measured in the study.

country-level cultural scores), the company may be able to identify such a consumer segment in every country and then develop a strategy to target the segment worldwide. Recent theoretical and technological advances such as consumer database management, extensive information technology, and electronic commerce can be used to implement such individual-centered segmentation approaches. Future studies need to keep validating our measures using larger samples, demographically diverse samples, and respondents from other countries, although the scale was already

adopted by and proved useful to researchers for many countries. However, a more urgent, meaningful research agenda is to use CVSCALE in testing prominent theories of culture at the individual level and explaining cross-cultural phenomena by culture (Earley 2006). A convenient and productive start will be to replicate existing studies to see if similar ndings can be made when culture is measured at the individual level (e.g., Yoo 2009, forthcoming). Similarities and differences in ndings from individual-level and national-level measures of culture will provide insights into psychological, sociological,

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

207

and business managerial differences of the same constructs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors greatly acknowledge Sungnan Yoo, Ju-Young Park, Gwangyong Gim, Seokjoong Yoon, Choongsup Lee, Doug Amyx, Jung H. Sohn, Rajiv Kishore, and Jeff Lewin for data collection.

REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., and A. Y. Lee. 2001. I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (1): 3349. Adapa, S. 2008. Adoption of Internet shopping: Cultural considerations in India and Australia. Journal of Internet Banking & Commerce 13 (2): 117. Alrawi, K., and K. Jaber. 2008. Differential responses to managerial incentives among workers: Case study. Journal of International and Cross-Cultural Studies 2 (1): 120. Bearden, W. O., R. B. Money, and J. L. Nevins. 2005. Multidimensional versus unidimensional measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM 94 example. Journal of Business Research 59 (2): 195203. Bearden, W. O., R. B. Money, and J. L. Nevins. 2006. A measure of long-term orientation: Development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34 (4): 456467. Blodgett, J. G., A. Bakir, and G. M. Rose. 2008. A test of the validity of Hofstedes cultural framework. Journal of Consumer Marketing 25 (6): 339349. Bochner, S., and B. Hesketh. 1994. Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 25 (2): 253257. Bollen, K. 1989. Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. Chan, K. W., C. K. (B.) Yim, and S. S. K. Lam. 2010. Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional nancial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing 74 (3): 4864. Chandy, P. R., and T. G. E. Williams. 1994. The impact of journals and authors on international business research: A citation analysis of JIBS articles. Journal of International Business Studies 25 (4): 715728. Chinese Culture Connection (a team of 24 researchers). 1987. Chinese values and the search for culturefree dimensions of culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 18 (2): 143164.

Choi, I., R. E. Nisbett, and A. Norenzayan. 1999. Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin 125 (1): 4763. Clark, T. 1990. International marketing and national character: A review and proposal for an integrative theory. Journal of Marketing 54 (4): 6679. Cleveland, M., M. Laroche, and N. Papadopoulos. 2009. Cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, and materialism: An eight-country study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of International Marketing 17 (1): 116146. Dawar, N., and P. Parker. 1994. Marketing universals: Consumers use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of Marketing 58 (2): 8195. Donthu, N., and B. Yoo. 1998. Cultural inuences on service quality expectations. Journal of Service Research 1 (2): 178185. Dorfman, P. W., and J. P. Howell. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management 3:127150. Dubinsky, A. J., M. Kotabe, C. U. Lim, and R. E. Michaels. 1994. Differences in motivational perceptions among U.S., Japanese, and Korean sales personnel. Journal of Business Research 30 (2): 175185. Earley, P. C. 2006. Leading cultural research in the future: A matter of paradigms and taste. Journal of International Business Studies 37 (6): 922931. Erdem, T., J. Swait, and A. Valenzuela. 2006. Brands as signals: A cross-country validation study. Journal of Marketing 70 (1): 3449. Farley, J. U., and D. R. Lehmann. 1994. Cross-cultural laws and differences in market response. Management Science 40 (1): 111122. Fornell, C., and D. F. Larker. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 3950. Furrer, O., B. S.-C. Liu, and D. Sudharshan. 2000. The relationships between culture and service quality perceptions. Journal of Service Research 2 (4): 355 371. Ganguly, B., S. B. Dash, D. Cyr, and M. Head. 2010. The effects of website design on purchase intention in online shopping: The mediating role of trust and the moderating role of culture. International Journal of Electronic Business 8 (4/5): 302329. Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. 1994. Management scientists are human. Management Science 40 (1): 413. Hofstede, G. 2001. Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

208

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Hoppe, M. H. 1990. A comprehensive study of country elites: International differences in work-related values and learning and their implications for management. Unpublished PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Hui, C. H. 1984. Individualism-collectivism and collectivism: Theory, measurement, and its relation to reward allocation. Unpublished PhD diss., University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. J oreskog, K. G., and D. S orbom. 1993. LISREL 8: Users reference guide. Chicago: Scientic Software International. Kale, S. H. 1995. Grouping Euroconsumers: A culturebased clustering approach. Journal of International Marketing 3 (3): 3548. Kale, S. H., and J. W. Barnes. 1992. Understanding the domain of cross-cultural buyer-seller interactions. Journal of International Business Studies 23 (1): 101132. Kamakura, W. A., and J. A. Mazzon. 1991. Value segmentation: A model for the measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research 18 (2): 208218. Kamakura, W. A., and T. P. Novak. 1992. Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research 19 (1): 119132. Kwok, S., and M. Uncles. 2005. Sales promotion effectiveness: The impact of culture at an ethnic-group level. Journal of Product & Brand Management 14 (3): 170186. Lenartowicz, T., and K. Roth. 1999. A framework for culture assessment. Journal of International Business Studies 30 (4) :781798. Leung, K., and M. H. Bond. 1989. On the empirical identication of dimensions for cross-cultural comparisons. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 20 (2): 133151. Limon, Y., L. R. Kahle, and U. R. Orth. 2009. Package design as a communications vehicle in cross-cultural values shopping. Journal of International Marketing 17 (1): 3057. Milligan, G. W., and M. C. Cooper. 1989. An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika 50 (2): 159179. Nasierowski, W., and B. Mikula. 1998. Culture dimensions of Polish managers: Hofstedes indices. Organization Studies 19 (3): 495509. Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Paek, H.-J., J. (H.) Yu, and B. J. Bae. 2009. Is on-line health promotion culture-bound? Cultural characteristics manifested in U.S. and South Korean antismoking web sites. Journal of Advertising 38 (1): 3347. Patterson, P. G., E. Cowley, and K. Prasongsukarn. 2006. Service failure recovery: The moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice. International Journal of Research in Marketing 23 (3): 263277.

Paul, P., A. Roy, and K. Mukhopadhyay. 2006. The impact of cultural values on marketing ethical norms: A study in India and the United States. Journal of International Marketing 14 (4): 2856. Prasongsukarn, K. 2009. Validating the Cultural Value Scale (CVSCALE): A case study of Thailand. ABAC Journal 29 (2): 113. Robinson, R. V. 1983. Review of cultures consequences. Work and Occupations 10; 110115. Rummel, R. J. 1970. Applied factor analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Schumann, J. H., F. v. Wangenheim, A. Stringfellow, Z. Yang, V. Blazevic, S. Praxmarer, G. Shainesh, M. Komor, R. M. Shannon, and F. R. Jim enez. 2010. Cross-cultural differences in the effect of received word-of-mouth referral in relational service exchange. Journal of International Marketing 18 (3): 6280. Shao, L., and S. Webber. 2006. A cross-cultural test of the ve-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Business Research 59 (8): 936944. Sharma, P. 2010. Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 (6): 787806. Shimp, T. A., and S. Sharma. 1987. Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research 24 (8): 280289. Smith, B. A. 2004. Relationship management in the sales organization: An examination of leadership style and cultural orientation in sales manager and salesperson dyads. PhD diss., Drexel University. Soares, A. M., M. Farhangmehr, and A. Shoham. 2007. Hofstedes dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. Journal of Business Research 60 (3): 277284. Sndergaard, M. 1994. Research note: Hofstedes consequences: A study of reviews, citations, and replications. Organization Studies 15 (3): 447456. Spector, P. E., C. L. Cooper, and K. Sparks. 2001. An international study of the psychometric properties of the Hofstede Values Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province level results. Applied Psychology 50 (2): 269281. Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. 1998. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 25 (1): 7890. Swaidan, Z., M. Y. A. Rawwas, and S. J. Vitell. 2008. Culture and moral ideologies of African Americans. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice 16 (2): 127137. Triandis, H. C. 1982. Review of Cultures consequences: International differences in work-related values. Human Organization 41 (1): 8690. Triandis, H. C. 1995. Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz

209

Triandis, H. C., H. Betancourt, S. Iwao, K. Leung, J. M. Salazar, B. Setiadi, J. B. P. Sinha, H. Touzard, and Z. Zaleski. 1993. An etic-emic analysis of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 24 (3): 366383. Triandis, H. C., R. Bontempo, and M. J. Villareal. 1988. Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (2): 323338. Vitell, S. J., K. C. Rallapalli, and A. Singhapakdi. 1993. Marketing norms: The inuence of personal moral philosophies and organizational ethical culture. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21 (4): 331337. Volkema, R. J. 2004. Demographic, cultural, and economic predictors of perceived ethicality of negotiation behavior: A nine-country analysis. Journal of Business Research 57 (1): 6978. Werner, O., and D. T. Campbell. 1972. Translating, working through interpreters, and the problem of decentering. In A handbook of cultural anthropology, ed. R. Naroll and R. Cohen, 398419. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Yoo, B. 2002. Cross-group comparisons: A cautionary note. Psychology & Marketing 19 (4): 357368. Yoo, B. 2009. Cross-national invariance of the effect of personal collectivistic orientation on brand loyalty and equity: The United States versus South Korean consumers. Asia Pacic Journal of Marketing and Logistics 21 (1): 4157. Yoo, B. Forthcoming. Store image on purchase intention: The moderating effect of individual and societal

uncertainty aversion among American and Korean consumers. Journal of International Business and Law. Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 1998. Validating Hofstedes ve-dimensional measure of culture at the individual level. Paper presented at the 1998 Summer Marketing Educators Conference of American Marketing Association, Chicago. Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 1999. Cultural orientation and consumer ethnocentrism. Presented at the 1999 Summer Marketing Educators Conference of American Marketing Association, San Francisco. Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2002. The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on marketing ethics of students. Journal of Marketing Education 24 (2): 92103. Yoo, B., and N. Donthu. 2005. The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer ethnocentrism: Evaluations and behaviors of U.S. consumers toward Japanese products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 18 (1/2): 744. Yoo, B., and J. W. Totten. 2005. The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on the ethics of a southern schools students. International Journal of Business Disciplines 16 (2): 7384.

RECEIVED: July 18, 2010 REVISED: November 29, 2010 ACCEPTED: January 18, 2011

210

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

APPENDIX. CVSCALE: A 26-Item Five-Dimensional Scale of Individual Cultural Values

KA (n = 320)

Item

A(n = 577)

K (n = 633) 1.91 1.65

2.85 1.53 1.84 1.68

Content and Scale Reliability

PO PO1
PO2 PO3 PO4 PO5

1.97 2.13
2.03 1.77 1.96 1.95

2.07 2.29
2.24 1.63 1.98 2.20

Power Distance (A = .69; K = .61; KA = .64; P = .62) People in higher positions should make most decisions without consulting people in lower positions. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of people in lower positions too frequently. People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with people in lower positions. People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions by people in higher positions. People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to people in lower positions. Uncertainty Avoidance (A = .80; K = .65; KA = .83; P = .71) It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail so that I always know what Im expected to do. It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures. Rules and regulations are important because they inform me of what is expected of me. Standardized work procedures are helpful. Instructions for operations are important. Collectivism (A = .80; K = .78; KA = .80; P = .76) Individuals should sacrice self-interest for the group. Individuals should stick with the group even through difculties. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. Group success is more important than individual success. Individuals should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual goals suffer. Long-Term Orientation (A = .76; K = .73; KA = .74; P = .70) Careful management of money (Thrift) Going on resolutely in spite of opposition (Persistence) Personal steadiness and stability Long-term planning Giving up todays fun for success in the future Working hard for success in the future Masculinity (A = .77; K = .64; KA = .69; P = .68) It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women. Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. Solving difcult problems usually requires an active, forcible approach, which is typical of men. There are some jobs that a man can always do better than a woman.

UN
UN1 UN2 UN3 UN4 UN5 CO CO1 CO2 CO3 CO4 CO5 CO6

4.01
3.69 4.20 4.11 3.85 4.19 3.15 3.01 3.67 3.21 3.17 2.90 2.90

3.83
4.02 3.82 3.64 3.73 3.95 2.57 2.62 2.36 2.70 2.63 3.02 2.10

4.01
3.83 4.15 3.98 3.88 4.20 3.37 3.53 3.79 3.45 3.41 2.98 3.07

LT
LT1 LT2 LT3 LT4 LT5 LT6

4.12
4.27 3.88 4.31 4.14 3.75 4.39

4.18
4.15 4.41 4.37 4.33 3.53 4.28

4.02
4.19 3.77 4.23 4.01 3.66 4.24

MA MA1
MA2 MA3 MA4

2.53 2.11
2.60 2.36 3.07

3.16 3.05
2.58 3.20 3.83

2.86 2.59
2.82 2.65 3.38

A = Americans; K = Koreans; KA = KoreanAmericans; and P = the pooled sample.

Copyright of Journal of International Consumer Marketing is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.