m 1 Culture dis 613

  read the following two articles 

 
Marketing Aspects of Cultural Distance-wiem06044
Cross-Cultural Psychology of Consumer Behavior-wiem03041

 Based on the above article(s) and guiding questions below, you are required to write an essay of at last 250 words (about 1 page double spaced with 12 font) and spell-checked with minimal grammatical errors. 

 Essay:
What is cultural distance8? How cultural and language differences impact on global marketing strategies*. How about economic factors and political factors on global marketing? What are the strategies we can use to respond to the heterogeneous global environment*? 

**Follow Rubric***

cross-cultural psychology of consumer
behavior

Minkyung Koo and Sharon Shavitt

INTRODUCTION

As new global markets emerge, and existing
markets become increasingly segmented along
ethnic or subcultural lines, the need to market
effectively to consumers who have different
cultural values has never been more important.
Thus, it is no surprise that in the last several
years, culture has rapidly emerged as a central
focus of research in consumer behavior. This
development followed on the heels of extensive
social psychological research on culture, which
provided a strong theoretical foundation for the
consumer-behavior studies that followed.

What is culture? Culture consists of shared
knowledge that provides the standards for
perceiving, believing, evaluating, feeling, comm-
unicating, and acting among those who share a
language, a historical period, and a geographic
location. As a psychological construct, culture
can be studied in multiple ways – across nations,
across ethnic groups within nations, across
individuals within nations (focusing on cultural
orientation), and across situations through the
priming of cultural values. The dimensions of
individualism versus collectivism, independence
versus interdependence, and analysis versus
holism have in recent years received significant
research attention. This attention has resulted
in a great number of studies revealing both
antecedents and consequences of the cultural
differences between East Asian and North
American cultures. As discussed subsequently,
regardless of how culture is studied, cultural
distinctions have important implications for
advertising content, persuasiveness of appeals,
consumer motivation, and consumer judgment
processes.

Article scope and overview This article reviews
major cultural constructs and theoretical impli-
cations of cultural differences in consumer infor-
mation processing, judgments, and choices. Our
review is necessarily selective, focusing on find-
ings specific to the consumer domain rather than

providing a general review of cultural differences
(for an excellent general review, see Wyer, Chiu,
and Hong, 2009). It should also be noted that
because of space limitations, this article does
not cover some major topics in cross-cultural
consumer behaviors such as self-regulation and
risk-taking, as well as methodological issues such
as response styles and biases (Shavitt, Lee, and
Torelli, 2009; Shavitt, Torelli, and Wong, 2009).

In this article, the cultural constructs of
individualism/collectivism and the indepen-
dent/interdependent self-construals associated
with them are given special attention because
extensive research has demonstrated the
implications of these distinctions for processes
and outcomes relevant to consumer behavior.
The most recent refinements to these constructs
are briefly reviewed in an attempt to identify
additional cultural variables likely to enhance
the understanding of cross-cultural consumer
behavior. We also review cultural differences
in thinking styles as a major emerging cultural
distinction and focus on their implications for
consumer-behavior research. Finally, we close
with a review of cross-cultural differences in
advertising content and the persuasiveness of
appeals.

KEY CONSTRUCTS AND DIMENSIONS OF
CULTURE

Individualism versus collectivism. The cons-
tructs of individualism and collectivism represent
the most broadly used dimensions of cultural
variability for cross-cultural comparison. In
individualistic cultures, people value inde-
pendence from others and subordinate the
goals of their in-groups to their own personal
goals. In collectivistic cultures, in contrast,
individuals value interdependent relationships
to others and subordinate their personal goals
to those of their in-groups (Hofstede, 1980;
Triandis, 1995). The key distinction involves
the extent to which one defines the self in
relation to others. In individualistic cultural
contexts, people tend to have an independent
self-construal whereby the self is defined
as autonomous and unique. In collectivistic
cultural contexts, by contrast, people tend to
have an interdependent self-construal whereby

Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, edited by Jagdish N. Sheth and Naresh K. Malhotra.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

2 cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior

the self is seen as inextricably and fundamentally
embedded within a larger social network of roles
and relationships (Markus and Kitayama, 1991).

National cultures that celebrate the values
of independence, such as the United States,
Canada, Germany, and Denmark, are typically
categorized as individualistic societies in which
an independent self-construal is common. In
contrast, cultures that nurture the values of
fulfilling one’s obligations over one’s own
personal wishes, including most East Asian and
Latin American countries, are categorized as
collectivistic societies in which an interdepen-
dent self-construal is common (Hofstede, 1980;
Triandis, 1995).

A large body of research in psychology
has demonstrated the many implications of
individualism/collectivism and independent/
interdependent self-construals for social perce-
ption and social behavior (Markus and Kitayama,
1991; Triandis, 1995). These findings indicate
consistently that individualists and people with
an independent self-construal are oriented
toward products and experiences that promote
achievement and autonomy, offer personal bene-
fits, and enable expression of one’s distinctive
qualities. On the other hand, collectivists and
people with an interdependent self-construal are
oriented toward products and experiences that
allow one to avoid negative outcomes, maintain
harmony and strong social connections with
others, and dutifully fulfill social roles.

Although a given self-construal can be more
chronically accessible in a particular culture,
cultures generally provide sufficient experiences
with independent and interdependent views of
the self to allow either type of self-construal to be
primed (Oyserman, Coon, and Kemmelmeier,
2002; Oyserman and Lee, 2007). Numerous
studies have established that these activated
self-views impact judgments in ways that
parallel cross-national differences (Shavitt, Lee,
and Torelli, 2009), for instance, by activating
distinct self goals (Lalwani and Shavitt, 2009).
People in general, and especially bicultural
people, can readily switch back and forth
between independent and interdependent
cultural frames in response to their contexts.
For instance, Lau-Gesk (2003) found that
independent (interdependent) self-construals
were temporarily activated when bicultural

consumers were exposed to individually focused
(interpersonally focused) appeals.

In sum, the distinctions between individual-
istic and collectivistic societies, and independent
and interdependent self-construals, are crucial
to the understanding of cross-cultural differ-
ences in consumer behavior. The studies to be
reviewed here offer extensive evidence that these
cultural classifications have fundamental impli-
cations for consumption-related outcomes.

Refined individualism versus collectivism. The
conceptualizations of individualism and collec-
tivism, and independence/interdependence,
have historically been broad and multidimen-
sional, summarizing a host of differences in
focus of attention, self-definitions, motiva-
tions, emotional connections to in-groups,
as well as belief systems and behavioral
patterns (Hofstede, 1980; Oyserman, Coon,
and Kemmelmeier, 2002). In addition, recent
studies have proposed useful refinements to
these broader cultural categories (Shavitt, Lee,
and Torelli, 2009). These studies suggest that
the nature and meaning of individualism and
collectivism varies across gender and ethnic
lines, as well as across family groupings and
institutions. Although the breadth of the
individualism-collectivism constructs lends
integrative strengths, research indicates that
further refinements of these categories can
enhance the prediction of consumer behavior.

The horizontal/vertical distinction. With
in the individualism-collectivism framework,
Triandis et al. (Triandis, 1995; Triandis and
Gelfand, 1998) have recently introduced a
further distinction between societies that are
horizontal (valuing equality) and those that are
vertical (emphasizing hierarchy), and a scale to
measure these orientations at the individual level.
The horizontal/vertical distinction emerges
from the observation that American or British
individualism differs from, say, Norwegian or
Danish individualism in much the same way that
Japanese or Korean collectivism differs from the
collectivism of the Israeli kibbutz. Specifically,
in vertical individualist (VI) societies (e.g.,
United States and Great Britain), people strive
to become distinguished and acquire status
via competition (Shavitt, Torelli and Wong,

cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior 3

2009); whereas in horizontal individualist (HI)
cultural contexts (e.g., Sweden and Norway),
people value uniqueness but are not especially
interested in becoming distinguished and
achieving high status (Nelson and Shavitt,
2002). In contrast, in vertical collectivistic
(VC) societies (e.g., Korea and Japan), people
emphasize the subordination of their goals to
those of their in-groups, submit to the will of
authority, and support competitions between
their in-groups and out-groups. Finally, in hori-
zontal collectivist (HC) cultural contexts (e.g.,
exemplified historically by the Israeli Kibbutz),
people see themselves as similar to others, and
emphasize shared goals and sociability, but
instead of submitting to authority, their view
of power focuses on benevolence and helping
others (Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli, 2009).

However, the modal comparisons in consumer
research are between the United States (VI)
and any of a number of Pacific Rim coun-
tries (VC). This means that much of what
is known about consumer behavior in indi-
vidualistic and collectivistic societies reflects
vertical forms of these syndromes and may not
generalize, for example, comparisons between
Sweden (HI) and Israel (HC) or other sets of
horizontal cultures. As an example, conformity
in product choice, as examined by Kim and
Markus (1999), may be a tendency specific to VC
cultures, in which deference to authority and to
in-group wishes is stressed. Much lower levels
of conformity may be observed in HC cultures,
which emphasize sociability but not deference
(Triandis and Gelfand, 1998). Thus, differences
in consumers’ conformity between Korea (VC)
and the United States (VI) may not charac-
terize broad individualism-collectivism differ-
ences, because levels of product conformity in
HC contexts might not exceed those in HI
contexts.

Indeed, several recent studies of this
horizontal/vertical cultural distinction have
provided evidence for its value as a predictor
of new consumer psychology phenomena and as
a basis for refining the understanding of known
phenomena (Shavitt et al., 2006). For instance,
Lalwani, Shavitt, and Johnson (2006) showed
that differences in the self-presentational
responses observed for individualists and
collectivists are mediated at the individual level

by the horizontal but not the vertical versions
of these cultural orientations. This suggests
that culturally linked self-presentational
efforts reflect distinct goals of being seen as
self-reliant and capable (valued in HI contexts)
versus sociable and benevolent (valued in HC
contexts).

Further evidence for the value of the
horizontal-vertical distinction comes from a
study of country-of-origin effects. Gürhan-Canli
and Maheswaran (2000) demonstrated that
the tendency to favor products from one’s
own country over foreign products emerged
more strongly in Japan (a VC culture) than in
the United States (a VI culture). Mediation
analyses using individual consumers’ self-rated
cultural values further indicated that only the
vertical aspect of individualism and collectivism
accounted for the country-of-origin effects
in Japan. In other words, the collectivistic
tendency to favor one’s own country’s products
appeared to be driven by cultural values that
stress hierarchy, competition, and deference
to in-group wishes, not by values that stress
interdependence more generally.

In line with this, as noted earlier, research
suggests that mental representations of power in
terms of status and competition versus benevo-
lence differ reliably between vertical and
horizontal cultural backgrounds and orien-
tations. These differences impact consumer
information processing and the interpretation of
power-related stimuli (Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli,
2009). Finally, content analyses of magazine
advertisements in several countries suggested
that status-oriented themes of hierarchy, luxury,
prestige, and distinction were generally more
prevalent in societies presumed to have vertical
cultural profiles (e.g., Korea, Russia) than a
horizontal cultural profile (Denmark) (Shavitt
et al., 2006).

Culture and thinking styles. East Asian and
North American cultural differences have
been well documented in social psychological
research, especially in terms of the differ-
ences in individualistic-collectivistic values
and independent-interdependent self-systems
(Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Many of these
cross-cultural studies of consumer behavior
have provided evidence that advertising (such

4 cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior

as magazine ads, Internet advertising, and
TV commercials) from Western cultures is in
general more individualistic and less collec-
tivistic than advertising from Asian cultures
(Morling and Lamoreaux, 2008), and that
consumers from Western cultures are more
likely to be persuaded by individualistic ads
and those from East Asian cultures are more
likely to be persuaded by collectivistic ads
(Han and Shavitt, 1994). However, relatively
little research has been done on cross-cultural
differences in consumers’ thinking orientations.
The following section provides a general review
of cultural differences in thinking styles in
addition to the findings of relevant studies of
consumer behavior and advertising effects.

Analytic versus holistic thinking. Broadly
speaking, Westerners tend to adopt an analytic
thinking style that emphasizes the indep-
endence of individual objects, whereas East
Asians tend to adopt a holistic view emphasizing
that the world is composed of interrelated
elements (Nisbett et al., 2001). The analytic
style of Westerners and the holistic style of
East Asians have been demonstrated in various
cognitive domains such as attention, causal
reasoning, perception of change, tolerance of
contradiction, and categorization.

The analytic style of attention is field indepen-
dent (mainly oriented toward an object itself),
whereas holistic attention is field dependent
(focused on the relationship between objects
and/or the field in which they are embedded)
(Nisbett et al., 2001). This difference in the
orientation of attention is also seen in the way
East Asians and Westerners perceive and explain
social events. East Asians tend to assume that
each element in the world is somehow inter-
twined, and thus an event or object can be
understood only in the context of the whole
set of relevant factors. By contrast, Westerners
tend to explain a certain event in terms of direct
causal links, thereby considering fewer reasons
than East Asians, who tend to consider a broader
set of reasons, regardless of their relevance to the
event (Choi et al., 2003).

Furthermore, in explaining causality of a
social event, analytic thinkers tend to focus on
the internal dispositions of an actor, whereas
holistic thinkers tend to consider a broader set of

reasons (including both dispositional and contex-
tual information) and are therefore less likely to
attribute an outcome to an actor’s internal char-
acteristics (Nisbett et al., 2001). This has impli-
cations for brand judgments, as well. Monga
and John (2007) found that negative publicity
influences analytic (vs. holistic) thinkers more
heavily, and thus changes their beliefs about
a brand to a greater degree because analytic
thinkers are less likely to consider contextual
information, and thus are more likely to attribute
negative product information to the brand.

From the analytic perspective, objects exist
independently, and thus the essence of the
objects is stable over time. This assumption
promotes a linear perception of change in which
no drastic deviation is expected in the pattern
of stability or change of a phenomenon (Nisbett,
2003). By contrast, the holistic view of the
world assumes that objects are interrelated, and
therefore it is less likely that a phenomenon
will remain stable over time. This perspective
results in a cyclic perception in which people
tend to predict fluctuating trends for an event.
For example, in predicting future stock-market
trends and making investment decisions, Cana-
dians are more likely to make judgments based
on recent trends than are Chinese people; thus,
when compared to the Chinese, Canadians are
more willing to buy stocks when they are in an
increasing trend and less willing to buy when
stock prices are decreasing (Ji, Zhang, and Guo,
2008).

The cyclic perception of change and expecta-
tion of instability prevalent among East Asians
renders a Yin-Yang belief that a characteristic
of an object can potentially transform into its
opposite. Consequently, East Asians tend to
hold a dialectical perception in which apparently
opposing concepts can simultaneously be true
and can peacefully coexist (Nisbett et al., 2001).
When confronted with opposing propositions,
East Asians tend to resolve contradictions by
choosing a middle ground, whereas Westerners
to rely on formal logic in resolving contradictions
by choosing one of the opposing propositions.
For example, US consumers tend to resolve
incongruities with an attenuation strategy in
which one piece of information is favored over
another inconsistent piece of information. In
contrast, Hong Kong Chinese consumers tend

cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior 5

to follow an additive strategy in which both
pieces of information are combined to influence
judgments (Aaker and Sengupta, 2000).

East Asians and Westerners also perceive
conflicting emotions in different ways. For
example, Bagozzi, Wong, and Yi (1999) showed
that Chinese tend to hold a dialectical perception
that pleasant and unpleasant emotions can be
experienced at the same time. Thus, their
frequency judgment for pleasant emotions is
positively correlated with their frequency judg-
ment for unpleasant emotions. By contrast, this
study found that for Americans the perceived
frequency of pleasant emotions is inversely
correlated with the perceived frequency of
unpleasant emotions. Schimmack, Oishi, and
Diener (2002) analyzed 38 nationalities and
demonstrated that this cultural difference
results from dialectical thinking, not from a
difference in individualistic-collectivistic values.
Moreover, Williams and Aaker (2002) demon-
strated that opposing emotions (e.g., both
happiness and sadness) in persuasion appeals
elicit more positive attitudes among Asian
Americans than among European Americans.

Westerners pay more attention to individual
objects and attribute causality to them, whereas
East Asians focus more on the field. Westerners
are more accustomed to formulating rules that
govern internal properties of objects and tend
to categorize things by applying those rules. In
contrast, East Asians organize objects on the
basis of their relationship to other objects or
to the field (Nisbett, 2003), and therefore they
tend to categorize objects according to their
overall similarities. Thus, when presented with
pictures of a panda, a monkey, and a banana, East
Asians tend to categorize the monkey and banana
together based on the relationship between the
two, whereas Westerners tend to categorize the
panda and monkey into one group based on
the traits that characterize them (Ji, Zhang, and
Nisbett, 2004).

Cultural differences in the way people cate-
gorize objects (rule/trait-based vs. similarity/
relationship-based) also appear in the way
they organize and store brand information.
For example, Ng and Houston (2006) showed
that Americans are less likely to retrieve
brand exemplars (i.e., specific products or
subcategories) than brand beliefs (i.e., general

descriptive or evaluative thoughts), whereas the
reverse was the case for Singaporeans. These
results emerged from an analytic tendency to
focus on ‘‘global beliefs’’ abstracted from prior
product experiences and a holistic tendency
to focus on contextual and incidental details
about the product. Similarly, Monga and John
(2008) found that, compared to Americans,
Indians tend to perceive a higher degree of fit
between a parent brand (e.g., Kodak) and its
brand extension (e.g., Kodak filing cabinet,
Kodak greeting cards), and to evaluate the
brand extension more positively. This result
reflects Indians’ holistic tendency to base their
judgments more heavily on the relationships
between brand extensions and parent brands
than do their American counterparts.

A variety of methods and techniques have
been developed to measure cultural differences
in thinking styles (Choi, Koo, and Choi, 2007;
Ji, Zhang, and Nisbett, 2004; Monga and
John, 2007), including responses to cognitive
tasks, scenarios and questions, physiological
measures, a scale, and analyses of various
cultural products. Furthermore, priming an
independent versus interdependent view of self
has also been found to promote analytic and
holistic modes of thinking, respectively. For
example, people primed with an independent
self-view were more likely to focus on a focal
object and thus were better at finding an
embedded figure by separating the figure from
its background than were those primed with an
interdependent self-view (see Oyserman and
Lee, 2007, for a review).

Additional dimensions. Numerous other
cultural distinctions deserve further attention in
consumer research. A focus upon these relatively
under-researched constructs as antecedents
may allow for broadening the range of cultural
differences beyond those currently investigated.
For instance, Schwartz’s (1992) circumplex
structure of values, which is highly robust
cross-nationally, parallels the HI, VI, HC, VC
typology and offers a particularly detailed and
comprehensive basis for classification. In his
large-scale studies of work values, Hofstede
(1980) derived three other dimensions of
cultural variation in addition to individualism:
power distance (acceptance of power inequality in

6 cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior

organizations, a construct conceptually relevant
to the vertical/horizontal distinction), uncer-
tainty avoidance (the degree of tolerance for
ambiguity or uncertainty about the future), and
masculinity/femininity (preference for achieve-
ment and assertiveness versus modesty and
nurturing relationships). Indeed, individualism
was the second dimension identified by Hofstede
(1980), whereas power distance emerged as
the first dimension. A few marketing-oriented
studies have employed Hofstede’s nation-level
classifications (Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli, 2009),
but more potential remains for identifying
consequences for consumer judgments and
behaviors. For instance, uncertainty avoidance
has been conceptualized as a syndrome related to
anxiety, rule orientation, need for security, and
deference to experts (Hofstede, 1980). As such,
one might speculate that the level of uncertainty
avoidance in a culture will predict the tendency
for advertisements to use fear appeals or appeals
to safety and security, and the tendency for
advertisements to employ expert spokespersons.
Differences along this cultural dimension may
also predict patterns in the diffusion of product
innovations, particularly innovations whose
purchase entails a degree of risk.

CULTURE AND PERSUASIVE APPEALS

Most research on cultural influences on judg-
ment and persuasion has examined the
implications of individualism/collectivism or
independent/interdependent self-construals. In
general, the findings suggest that the prevalence
or the persuasiveness of a given type of appeal
matches the cultural value orientation of the
society (Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli, 2009). For
instance, appeals to individuality, personal
benefits, and achievement are usually more
prevalent and persuasive in individualistic
compared to collectivistic cultures, whereas
appeals to group benefits, harmony, and confor-
mity are usually more prevalent and persuasive
in collectivistic compared to individualistic
cultures. Such evidence for ‘‘cultural matching’’
in the nature of appeals has been followed by
studies examining the distinct psychological
processes driving persuasion across cultures.
These studies suggest that culture can affect how
people process and interpret product-related

information. It can determine the type of
information that is weighed more heavily for
making judgments (e.g., product attributes vs
other consumers’ opinions). However, brand
and product characteristics can constrain
the role of cultural variables in information
processing and persuasion, with some brands
and products serving as stronger carriers of
cultural values (Shavitt, Torelli and Wong,
2009).

Cultural differences in the content of message
appeals. Cross-cultural content analyses of
advertisements can yield valuable evidence
about distinctions in cultural values. For
instance, American advertisers and consumer
researchers often assume that consumer learning
about the brand precedes other marketing
effects, such as liking and buying the brand.
Thus, advertisements that attempt to teach
the consumer about the brand are typical in
the United States, although other types of
advertisements are also used.

In contrast, as Miracle (1987) suggested, the
typical goal of advertisements in Japan appears
very different. There, advertisements tend to
focus on ‘‘making friends’’ with the audience
and showing that the company understands their
feelings. The assumption is that consumers will
buy once they feel familiar with and have a
sense of trust in the company. Because Japan,
Korea, and other Pacific Rim countries are
collectivist cultures that tend toward implicit
and indirect communication practices (Triandis,
1995), Miracle suggested that the mood and
tone of commercials in these countries will
be particularly important in establishing good
feelings about the advertiser. Several studies
have supported these notions, showing that
advertisements in Japan and Korea, compared
to those in the United States, rely more on
symbolism, mood, and aesthetics and less on
direct approaches such as brand comparisons
(Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli, 2009). The ads may
be equally informative about the brand across
cultures. It is the type of appeal that will vary.

For instance, a content analysis of magazine
advertisements revealed that in Korea, compared
to the United States, advertisements are more
focused on family well-being, interdependence,
group goals, and harmony, whereas they are

cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior 7

less focused on self-improvement, ambition,
personal goals, independence, and individuality
(Han and Shavitt, 1994). However, as one might
expect, the nature of the advertised product
moderated these effects. Cultural differences
emerged strongly only for products that tend
to be purchased and used along with other
persons (e.g., groceries, cars). Products that
do not tend to be shared (e.g., health and
beauty aids, clothing) are promoted more in
terms of personal, individualistic benefits in both
countries.

Paralleling the overall cross-national differ-
ences, a content analysis by Kim and Markus
(1999) indicated that Korean advertisements,
compared to US advertisements, were character-
ized by more conformity themes (e.g., respect for
collective values and beliefs) and fewer unique-
ness themes (e.g., rebelling against collective
values and beliefs). Website content in Eastern
and Western countries also appears to differ
in the emphasis on individual versus collective
activities (Shavitt, Lee, and Torelli, 2009).

Finally, it is important to note that, in
countries experiencing rapid economic growth,
advertising content does not necessarily reflect
existing cultural values, instead promoting new,
aspirational values such as individuality and
modernity. For instance, in China, in recent
years, westernized ad appeals are increasingly
common. Appeals to youth/modernity, indi-
viduality/independence, and technology are
especially salient in Chinese advertisements
that target the younger generation (Zhang and
Shavitt, 2003). Similarly, during a period of
rapid transition in South Korea’s economy
(1968–1998), content analysis of advertisements
revealed substantial shifts toward individu-
alistic, modernity-oriented appeals (Han and
Shavitt, 2005).

Cultural differences in judgment and persuasion.
Research suggests that the persuasiveness of
appeals may mirror the cultural differences in
their prevalence. An experiment by Han and
Shavitt (1994) showed that appeals to individu-
alistic values (e.g., ‘‘Solo cleans with a softness
that you will love’’) were more persuasive in the
United States and appeals to collectivistic values
(e.g., ‘‘Solo cleans with a softness that your
family will love’’) were more persuasive in Korea.

Again, however, this effect was much more
evident for products that are shared (laundry
detergent, clothes iron) than for those that are
not (chewing gum, running shoes).

Zhang and Gelb (1996) found a similar
pattern in the persuasiveness of individualistic
versus collectivistic appeals in an experiment
conducted in the United States and China.
Moreover, this effect appeared to be moder-
ated by whether the advertised product is
socially visible (camera) versus privately used
(toothbrush). Finally, Wang and Mowen
(1997) showed in a US sample that individual
differences in separateness/connectedness self-
schema (i.e., the degree to which one views
the self as independent of or interconnected
with important others) predicts attitudes toward
individualistic versus collectivistic ad appeals
for a credit card. Thus, cultural orientation
and national culture have implications for the
effectiveness of appeals. However, such cultural
differences would only be anticipated for those
products or uses that are relevant to both
personal and group goals.

Cultural differences in persuasion are also
revealed in the diagnosticity of certain types
of information. For instance, Aaker and
Maheswaran (1997) showed that consensus
information regarding other consumers’
opinions is not treated as a heuristic cue by
Hong Kong Chinese (as it is in the United
States) but is instead perceived and processed
as diagnostic information. Thus, collectivists
resolve incongruity in favor of consensus
information, not brand attributes. This would
be expected in a culture that stresses conformity
and responsiveness to others’ views. On the
other hand, cues whose (low) diagnosticity is not
expected to vary cross-culturally (e.g., number
of attributes presented) elicit similar heuristic
processing in the United States and Hong Kong.

Finally, because cognitive associations with
power vary with horizontal and vertical
cultural orientations and with ethnicity, as
noted earlier, Torelli et al., found differences
in the interpretive processes and mindsets
triggered when power is salient. Specifically,
people whose cultural orientation predisposes a
status-oriented view of power activate cognitive
processes that facilitate defending their power,
such as reasserting control by confirming

8 cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior

prior stereotypes about a brand. In contrast,
people whose cultural orientation predisposes
a benevolence-oriented view of power activate
cognitive processes that facilitate helping others,
such as by forming accurate, careful impressions
of brands (Shavitt, Torelli and Wong, 2009).

CONCLUSIONS

As marketing efforts are increasingly global-
ized, understanding cross-cultural consumer
behavior has become a key focus of consumer
research. In recent years, research in consumer
behavior has addressed a broadening set of
cross-cultural issues and dimensions. Research
has provided an enhanced understanding of the
relations between culture and self-construal,
motivation, thinking style, and consumer
persuasion. Research has also begun to address
the psychological mechanisms underlying cross-
cultural differences in consumer judgments,
and the products and contexts for which these
differences are most likely to be observed.
Understanding cultural differences has become
crucial for effective marketing and advertising.
In future research, it will be important to
further distinguish cultural similarities and
differences in consumer judgments, identify
within-culture or subgroup differences that
parallel between-culture differences, and
explore their rich implications in consumer
behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Preparation of this article was supported
by Grant #1R01HD053636-01A1from the
National Institutes of Health, Grant #0648539
from the National Science Foundation, and
Grant #63842 from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation to Sharon Shavitt.

Bibliography

Aaker, J.L. and Maheswaran, D. (1997) The effect
of cultural orientation on persuasion. Journal of
Consumer Research, 24 (3), 315–328.

Aaker, J.L. and Sengupta, J. (2000) Addivity versus
attenuation: the role of culture in the resolution
of information incongruity. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 9 (2), 67–82.

Bagozzi, R.P., Wong, N., and Yi, Y. (1999) The role
of culture and gender in the relationship between
positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion,
13 (6), 641–672.

Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., and Park, H. (2003)
Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (1), 46–59.

Choi, I., Koo, M., and Choi, J. (2007) Measuring the
analytic vs. the holistic thinking style. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33 (5), 691–705.

Gürhan-Canli, Z. and Maheswaran, D. (2000) Cultural
variations in country of origin effects. Journal of
Marketing Research, 37 (3), 309–317.

Han, S.-P. and Shavitt, S. (1994) Persuasion and culture:
advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic
societies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30
(4), 326.

Han, S. and Shavitt, S. (2005) Westernization of cultural
values in Korean advertising: a longitudinal content
analysis of magazine ads from 1968-1998, in Advances
in consumer research, Vol. 32 (eds G. Menon and A.R.
Rao), Association for Consumer Research, Provo,
UT, pp. 249–250.

Hofstede, G.H. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: Inter-
national Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage,
Newbury, Park.

Ji, L.J., Zhang, Z., and Guo, T. (2008) To buy or to sell:
cultural differences in stock market decisions based
on stock price trends. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 21 (4), 399–413.

Ji, L.J., Zhang, Z., and Nisbett, R.E. (2004) Is it Culture,
or is it language? Examination of language effects in
cross-cultural research on categorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (1), 57–65.

Kim, H.S. and Markus, H.R. (1999) Deviance or unique-
ness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (4),
785–800.

Lalwani, A.K. and Shavitt, S. (2009) The ‘‘me’’ I claim to
be: cultural self-construal elicits self-presentational
goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 97 (1), 88–102.

Lalwani, A., Shavitt, S., and Johnson, T.P. (2006) What is
the relation between cultural orientation and socially
desirable responding? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90 (1), 165–178.

Lau-Gesk, L.G. (2003) Activating culture through
persuasion appeals: an examination of the bicultural
consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3),
301–315.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the
self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motiva-
tion. Psychological Review, 98 (2), 224–253.

cross-cultural psychology of consumer behavior 9

Miracle, G.E. (1987) Feel-Do-Learn: an alternative
sequence underlying Japanese consumer response to
television commercials, in Proceedings of the L.A.
Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (ed.
F.G. Feasley), The University of South Carolina,
Columbia.

Monga, A.B. and John, D.R. (2007) Cultural differences
in brand extension evaluation: the influence of analytic
versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer Research,
33 (4), 529–536.

Monga, A.B. and John, D.R. (2008) When does negative
brand publicity hurt? The moderating influence of
analytic versus holistic thinking. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 18 (4), 320–332.

Morling, B. and Lamoreaux, M. (2008) Measuring culture
outside the head: a meta-analysis of cultural prod-
ucts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12 (3),
199–221.

Nelson, M.R. and Shavitt, S. (2002) Horizontal and
vertical individualism and achievement values: a
multi-method examination of Denmark and the U.S.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33 (5), 439–458.

Ng, S. and Houston, M.J. (2006) Exemplars or beliefs?
The impact of self-view on the nature and relative
influence of brand associations. Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (4), 519–529.

Nisbett, R.E. (2003) The Geography of Thought: How
Asians and Westerners think Differently…, and Why,
Free Press, New York.

Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I., and Norenzayan,
A. (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic
versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108
(2), 291–310.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., and Kemmelmeier,
M. (2002) Rethinking individualism and collec-
tivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and
meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128 (1), 3–72.

Oyserman, D. and Lee, S.W.-S. (2007) Priming ‘culture’:
culture as situated cognition, in Handbook of Cultural
Psychology (eds S. Kitayama and D. Cohen), Guilford
Press, New York, pp. 255–282.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992) Universals in the content and
structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical
tests in 20 countries, in Advances in experimental social

psychology, Vol. 25 (ed. M.P. Zanna), Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 1–65.

Shavitt, S., Lalwani, A.K., Zhang, J., and Torelli,
C.J. (2006) The horizontal/vertical distinction in
cross-cultural consumer research. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16 (4), 325–356.

Shavitt, S., Lee, A., and Torelli, C. (2009) New directions
in cross-cultural consumer psychology, in The Social
Psychology of Consumer Behavior, a volume in the
series, Frontiers of Social Psychology (eds M. Wänke,
A.W. Kruglanski, and J.P. Forgas) Series Editors,
Psychology Press, New York, pp. 227–250.

Shavitt, S., Torelli, C., and Wong, J. (2009), Identity-
based motivation in a consumer context. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 19 (3), pp. 261–266.

Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., and Diener, E. (2002) Cultural
influences on the relation between pleasant emotions
and unpleasant emotions: Asian dialectic philosophies
or individualism-collectivism? Cognition and Emotion,
16 (6), 705–719.

Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and collectivism,
Westview Press, Boulder.

Triandis, H.C. and Gelfand, M.J. (1998) Converging
measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism
and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74 (1), 118–128.

Wang, C.L. and Mowen, J.C. (1997) The separate-
ness-connectedness self-schema: scale development
and application to message construction. Psychology
and Marketing, 14 (2), 185–207.

Williams, P. and Aaker, J. (2002) Can mixed emotions
peacefully co-exist? Journal of Consumer Research,
28 (4), 636–649.

Wyer, R.S., Chiu, C.-Y., and Hong, Y.-Y. (eds) (2009).
Understanding Culture: Theory, Research and Applica-
tion, Psychology Press, New York.

Zhang, Y. and Gelb, B.D. (1996) Matching advertising
appeals to culture: the influence of products’ use
conditions. Journal of Advertising, 25 (3), 29–46.

Zhang, J. and Shavitt, S. (2003) Cultural values in adver-
tisements to the Chinese X-generation: promoting
modernity and individualism. Journal of Advertising,
32 (1), 23–33.

marketing aspects of cultural distance

Carlos M. P. Sousa

There is a general consensus in the literature
that when firms decide to enter foreign
markets, they must adjust to a different cultural
environment and be prepared for challenges,
such as differences in language, lifestyles,
cultural standards, consumer preferences, and
purchasing power, among others (see GLOBAL
MARKETING STRATEGY; CROSS-CULTURAL
PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR;
STANDARDIZATION/ADAPTATION OF
INTERNATIONAL MARKETING STRA-
TEGY; BASE OF THE PYRAMID MARKETS:
CULTURE INSIGHTS AND MARKETING
IMPLICATIONS). To assess these differences
between countries, a new body of literature has
emerged around the concept of cultural distance,
which has been used to measure the scope and
scale of these differences. The assumption is
that cultural differences between the home and
the foreign markets create a distance, which, in
turn, influences the activity of the firm in the
international arena. As a result, few concepts
in the international-marketing literature
have gained broader attention than ‘‘cultural
distance.’’ This concept has been identified as a
key variable in explaining the behavior of firms
in a vast array of areas including entry-mode
choice, foreign-market selection, level of control
(see MARKET ENTRY AND EXPANSION),
international-marketing strategies (see GLOBAL
MARKETING STRATEGY: PERSPECTIVES
AND APPROACHES), and performance (see
EXPORT PERFORMANCE). Mixed empirical
results, however, have been found in the
literature regarding the importance of this
construct. Whereas some studies have found
cultural distance to significantly influence the
activity of the firm in the international arena
(Barkema and Vermeulen, 1997), other studies
have found no significant or clear relationship
(Mitra and Golder, 2002).

Various reasons have been proposed to explain
these inconclusive results. On the one hand,
some scholars have argued that the preferences
and tastes of consumers in different countries are
converging to a global norm (Levitt, 1983), and
hence the effect of cultural distance is likely to

dilute progressively. The notion that national
cultures are converging appears to be plau-
sible considering the emergence of the Internet,
greater ease of information flow, and more
frequent/easier international travel. However,
this argument is disputed by Barkema and
Vermeulen (1997), who use data spanning almost
three decades (1966–1994) in their study, and
find that the effect of cultural distance does not
decrease over time, that is, that cultural values
and distances remain stable. This may be due
to the fact that such changes concern conver-
gences in superficial appearances of culture (i.e.,
symbols, heroes, and rituals) and that they
do not necessarily signal a convergence in the
values embedded in national cultures (Hofstede,
2006).

The inconsistencies could also be attributed to
the difficulty that exists in the conceptualization
and operationalization of the cultural-distance
construct. For instance, as Sousa and Bradley
(2006, 2008) note, many authors have used
cultural distance and psychic distance (see
MARKETING ASPECTS OF PSYCHIC DIST-
ANCE) interchangeably with no clear distinction
between them, a contamination that has been
disputed by these authors and which may
undermine the validity of the research (see
RESEARCH RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY).
Cultural distance has been defined as the degree
to which cultural values in one country are
different from those in another country (Sousa
and Bradley, 2006). Accordingly, it should be
used to assess differences in national culture.
Several frameworks have been advanced and
used in the measurement of the extent to which
different cultures are similar or different, such
as that of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961)
and Ronen and Shenkar (1985). However,
the most widely used framework is that of
Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. To
arrive at a measure of cultural distance, Kogut
and Singh (1988) were the first to combine
Hofstede’s dimensions into one aggregate
measure of cultural distance among countries,
and many studies have subsequently used
this formula or an adapted version, as a
measure of cultural distance. However, while
a tangible and convenient tool, the Kogut
and Singh index has been liable to the same
criticism as that leveled against Hofstede’s value

Wiley International Encyclopedia of Marketing, edited by Jagdish N. Sheth and Naresh K. Malhotra.
Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

ye
Line

2 marketing aspects of cultural distance

dimensions, for example, nonexhaustiveness,
outdated data, assumptions about the linearity,
additivity, and normal distributions of scores
(Shenkar, 2001). As a result, there has been an
increasing call in the literature to develop new
measures (see VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY)
to operationalize cultural distance as it may
be unrealistic to expect that a single measure
can fully discern the underlying differences
across countries (Tihanyi, Griffith, and Russell,
2005). Some recent studies may offer some
interesting alternatives to measure cultural
distance (Schwartz, 1994) and should, therefore,
be explored in future studies.

Bibliography

Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997) What differ-
ences in the cultural backgrounds of partners are
detrimental for international joint ventures. Journal
of International Business Studies, 28 (4), 845–864.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-related Values, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills.

Hofstede, G. (2006) What did GLOBE really measure?
Researchers’ minds versus respondents’ minds.
Journal of International Business Studies, 37 (6),
882–896.

Kluckhohn, F.R. and Strodtbeck, F.L. (1961) Variations
in Value Orientations, Row, Peterson, Evanston.

Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) The effect of national
culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 19 (3), 411–432.

Levitt, T. (1983) The globalization of markets. Harvard
Business Review, 61 (3), 92–102.

Mitra, D. and Golder, P.N. (2002) Whose culture matters?
Near-market knowledge and its impact on foreign
market entry timing. Journal of Marketing Research,
39 (3), 350–365.

Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985) Clustering countries
on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis.
Academy of Management Review, 10 (3), 435–454.

Schwartz S.H. (1994) in Individualism and Collectivism:
Theory, Method and Applications (eds U. Kim H.C.
Triandis C. Kagitçibasi et al.), Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, pp. 85–119.

Shenkar, O. (2001) Cultural distance revisited: towards a
more rigorous conceptualization and measurement of
cultural differences. Journal of International Business
Studies, 32 (3), 519–535.

Sousa, C.M.P. and Bradley, F. (2006) Cultural distance
and psychic distance: two peas in a pod? Journal of
International Marketing, 14 (1), 49–70.

Sousa, C.M.P. and Bradley, F. (2008) Cultural distance
and psychic distance: refinements in conceptualisation
and measurement. Journal of Marketing Management,
24 (5/6), 467–488.

Tihanyi, L., Griffith, D.A., and Russell, C.J. (2005)
The effect of cultural distance on entry mode choice,
international diversification, and MNE performance:
a meta-analysis. Journal of International Business
Studies, 36 (3), 270–283.