Reconceptualizing Individualism-Collectivism in Consumer Behavior

Gary D. Gregory, University of Texas at Arlington
James M. Munch, University of Texas at Arlington
ABSTRACT - Research investigating the effects of individualism-collectivism in advertising communications has achieved only limited success due to: (1) the tendency of researchers to explain or predict cross-cultural preferences using Hofstede's (1980) country-level ratings of individualism-collectivism; and, (2) the operationalization of the individualism-collectivism construct as a dichotomous trade-off between personal and ingroup goals.
[ to cite ]:
Gary D. Gregory and James M. Munch (1996) ,"Reconceptualizing Individualism-Collectivism in Consumer Behavior", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 23, eds. Kim P. Corfman and John G. Lynch Jr., Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 104-110.

Advances in Consumer Research Volume 23, 1996      Pages104-110


Gary D. Gregory, University of Texas at Arlington

James M. Munch, University of Texas at Arlington


Research investigating the effects of individualism-collectivism in advertising communications has achieved only limited success due to: (1) the tendency of researchers to explain or predict cross-cultural preferences using Hofstede's (1980) country-level ratings of individualism-collectivism; and, (2) the operationalization of the individualism-collectivism construct as a dichotomous trade-off between personal and ingroup goals.

In the research reported here we show that individualism-collectivism is not necessarily dichotomous at the individual level, and that individual (collective) behavior may occur without being in conflict with collective (individual) values. Additionally, our findings suggest that when individual-level values are considered in a consumer-related context, the mix of important individualist and collectivist values do not vary together and are not necessarily opposed. Implications for future research in cultural values in consumer behavior are offered.


Cultural values play an important role in the perception and use of marketing communications. Studies examining message content indicate that one very important dimension of culture to consider when developing advertising and promotional messages is that of individualism-collectivism (Han, 1990; Kale, 1991; Zandpour, 1994). Past research also suggests that advertising themes that are consistent with cultural values of the intended audience are more desirable than ads that reflect values that are inconsistent (Belk, Bryce and Pollay, 1985; Munson & McIntyre, 1978).

In addition to examining behavioral differences among cultural groups, researchers can also expect to find individual differences within a single cultural group. In the United States, for example, there exists a number of ethnic groups and geographic regions that vary in their degree of individualism and collectivism (Hecht, Anderson, & Ribeau, 1989). Numerous past studies (primarily in social psychology) have made great strides in examining and measuring similarities and differences in social behavior (e.g., both between and within individualistic and collectivistic cultures) (Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, McCusker & Hui, 1990). However, marketing efforts to extend these measurements when examining similarities and differences in advertising content and behavioral responses have achieved only limited success.

The shortcomings of these studies are due, in part, to the context in which the behavior is being measured. Although previously validated measurements have been very successful in measuring normative behavior relative to social context at the cultural level, they may be unable to detect behavioral differences in a consumer context at the individual level. Two major problems associated with past research efforts includes: (1) the tendency of researchers to explain or predict cross-cultural preferences using Hofstede's (1980) hypothesized country-level ratings of individualism-collectivism; and, (2) the operationalization of the individualism-collectivism construct based on a dichotomous trade-off between personal and ingroup goals.

Recent research suggests that individualism-collectivism, as a dichotomy, is insufficient in explaining behavior at the individual level because it fails to consider values that serve goals that are collective (e.g., social justice, equality, and preservation of the environment), but do not serve a specific ingroup (Schwartz, 1990). Conversely, there are values that serve goals that are individual (e.g., hedonism, self enhancement, and stimulation) that may not be in direct conflict with ingroup goals. Applied to consumer behavior, this suggests that individuals may behave in an individualistic (collectivistic) manner without necessarily conflicting with ingroup (personal) goals. Currently, researchers who detect nuances in individualism-collectivism at the cultural level are unable to successfully apply such theory to behavior at the individual level, especially in a consumer-related context. Based on the limitations in this area, the purpose of this study is to explore how value orientations underlying the individualism-collectivism construct at the cultural level relate to product beliefs, evaluations and purchase intentions at the individual level.


The individualism-collectivism dimension at the cultural level relates to how one values the individual relative to the group. Individualist societies (U.S., U.K., Germany) emphasize values such as achievement, recognition, etc. (McCarty & Hattwick, 1992); collectivist societies (Mexico, Peru, and Chile) emphasize values such as family security, responsibility, conformity to societal norms, etc. (Hofstede, 1980).

An important aspect of collectivist cultures is that individuals may feel normative pressure to conform to the goals of a collective ingroup (e.g., family, tribe, religious group). Ingroups for collectivist societies include tightly knit groups (e.g., family or tribe). Ingroups for individualist societies are loosely knit groups (e.g., co-workers or social class) (Triandis et al., 1990). In addition to subordinating personal goals to ingroup goals, individuals in a collectivistic society tend to participate more in ingroup activities, be more concerned with ingroup interests, and feel compelled to conform to ingroup opinions (Hui & Triandis, 1986). According to Triandis (1994) analysis of this construct at the cultural level should involve the study of desirable behaviors for members in society (norms), proscribed behavior of individuals relative to one another (roles), and the goals and principles that motivate individuals (values). This, of course, is based on the assumption that individuals in an individualistic (collectivistic) society have a set of norms, roles and values that are distinctively individualistic (collectivistic) in nature, and that are either individually (personally) or collectively (communally) driven. Thus, the individualism-collectivism construct, as mapped by Triandis, Hofstede and others, has been treated as a dichotomy, that revolves around the conflict between personal goals and ingroup goals.

Prior research examining individualism versus collectivism at the individual level has identified persons who display individualistic tendencies (i.e., emphasize personal goals over ingroup goals) as idiocentrics; and persons who display collectivist tendencies (i.e., emphasize ingroup goals over personal goals) as allocentrics (Triandis et al., 1990). Cultural groups contain individuals that display both idiocentric and/or allocentric tendencies, depending on the behavioral context. This should be even more evident when the individualism-collectivism dimension is extended to consumer-related behavior. For example, idiocentrics may behave in a manner that allows their private self to realize achievement (i.e., purchasing a 'well-deserved' clothing item for their personal self). On the other hand, their public self may purchase certain 'status oriented' products as an outward demonstration of their success according to social standards (resulting in compliance to a loosely-knit ingroup). The purchase of the same clothing item can be interpreted very differently if an allocentric's private self fulfills their sense of belonging (i.e., purchasing the clothing item to fulfill their personal goal of security). Likewise, their public self may be motivated to comply to local customs by purchasing items that conform to social expectations. These examples illustrate that individuals' behavior (whether individualistic or collectivistic in nature) depends largely on the examination of a mediating variable of interest that attempts to connect individual behavior to culture-level phenomenon - in this case, values. That is, people do not always behave in a strict individualistic or collectivistic manner, but rather exercise individualistic and collectivistic behavior depending on their motivational goals associated with a purchase. Furthermore, it is very likely that individuals may engage in purchase behavior based on their individualistic values (e.g., achievement, self-gratification, pleasure seeking) without necessarily opposing their ingroup goals. Although past research at the individual level (allocentrism-idiocentrism) has been very successful in identifying parallel variations in individualism-collectivism, there still exists limitations in its application due to the assumption of dichotomous tradeoffs between personal and ingroup goals.


Most previous studies on cultural values in marketing communications are conducted cross-culturally, investigating similarities and differences in advertising messages between and among individualistic and collectivistic cultures (McCarty & Hattwick, 1992; Mueller, 1987; Alden, Hoyer, & Lee, 1993; Han, 1990).

McCarty & Hattwick (1992) investigated core values (e.g., individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity, time orientation, etc.) contained within advertisements in the U.S. and Mexico. The authors found that Hofstede's (1980) individualism-collectivism dimension was the most important dimension to consider in international advertising, with nearly one third of the ads within the U.S. and Mexico containing the individualism-collectivism dimension. However, their results indicate that for the U.S., only 61% of these ads are consistent with an individualistic orientation, and 38% are inconsistent (or are collectivistic in nature). The results for Mexico are even worse, with only 53% of the ads consistent with a collectivistic orientation and 47% inconsistent (or individualistic in nature). If individualism-collectivism, as a cultural index, is an important dimension to consider in developing marketing communications, then why are so many advertisements shown in these two countries inconsistent with Hofstede's country individualism index [rating of 91 for the U.S. and 30 for Mexico]? One explanation could be that Hofstede's country-level indices were based on work-related values and are poor indicators of individual-level consumer behavior.

Mueller (1987) used content analysis to focus on the cultural values represented within ad copy in an individualistic society (U.S.) and a collectivistic society (Japan). The research findings suggested that advertising in the U.S. and Japan generally tends to reflect the prevalent values of those cultures. However, specific values not traditionally known to be indigenous to these cultures were also found (e.g., individual/independence and status appeal in Japan; and, group consensus in the U.S.). Two explanations were offered for the existence of foreign (or inconsistent) cultural values in advertising messages: 1) culture in foreign markets is evolving and conforming to those values of the country from which the product originates; and, 2) advertising reflects indigenous cultural values only as long as it is profitable. A third potential explanation may be that: individualistic/collectivistic values depicted in advertisements differ from indigenous values due to the absence of a dichotomous tradeoff between personal vs. ingroup goals. Consumers can behave in a collectivistic manner (i.e., favoring values that promote ingroup goals), while also having strong beliefs, attitudes or purchase intentions for a product that is advertised using an individualistic appeal. To have favorable attitudes towards a product that promotes self gratification, for example, is not necessarily in direct conflict with conformity to ingroup goals.

Alden, Hoyer & Lee (1993) examined how specific content of humorous advertising varies among individualistic and collectivistic cultures. The authors base their ad comparison on the dichotomous tradeoff between personal and ingroup goals (as suggested by Hofstede and Triandis) C where individualistic cultures tend to be characterized by smaller less demanding ingroups and collectivistic cultures tend to involve larger more demanding groups. Two important unresolved issues exist with respect to Alden et al.'s use of the normative dimension individualism-collectivism. First, the individualism-collectivism construct, as a dichotomy, is insufficient because it fails to consider values that may serve both personal and ingroups goals. This may be especially true for behavior in a consumer-related context. Second, although Alden et al.'s intention was to show a correlation between Hofstede's country individualism index and the depiction of indigenous values in advertisements, the conceptual meaning of such a comparison is unclear. That is, even if the individualism-collectivism construct were dichotomous and there was a significant correlation between Hofstede's index and the depiction of indigenous values in ads, does Alden et al.'s operationalization of individualism-collectivism (e.g., the number of individuals or characters playing major roles in ads) necessarily depict conformity to either personal or ingroup goals?

Han (1990) provides compelling evidence that at the country level, individualistic advertisements are more effective in the U.S. and collectivistic advertisements are more effective in Korea. Further analysis shows that this pattern varied across involvement levels and individualistic versus collectivistic product categories. The author went on to investigate the individualism-collectivism construct at the individual level, by employing a personality factor, idiocentrism-allocentrism, that attempts to replicate this cultural level difference. However, the overall results indicate that both idiocentric subjects (individualistic in nature) and allocentric subjects (collectivistic in nature) reacted equally favorably to individualistic and collectivistic ads. These results suggest that either there were no significant within-culture differences in product attitudes, or that the idiocentric-allocentric scale used (Greenwald et al.'s, (1986) Ego Task Orientation Scale) was unable to detect differences in attitudes pertaining to consumer behavior.

In sum, past research on cultural values in marketing suggests that cultural-level indices of individualism-collectivism are at best, only general measures of country-level phenomenon, and may have possible limitations when applied to individual-level consumer behavior. Before researchers can successfully extend this dimension to individual-level behavior, it may be helpful to explore a mediating construct that bridges the gap between individualism-collectivism at the cultural level, and 'individualistic' and 'collectivistic' tendencies at the individual level.




Schwartz (1990, 1994) suggests that to attain a better understanding of cultural and individual differences, researchers should focus on the measurement of values that are based on motivational goals associated with personal needs, social motives, and social institutional demands. The author defines values as 'people's conceptions of the goals that serve as guiding principles in their lives' (Schwartz, 1990, 142). Realizing the need to develop a more precise, parallel measurement of individualism-collectivism at the individual level, Schwartz theoretically derived a set of ten values that are classified according to the basic principles served by the individualism-collectivism dimension (See Table 1).

Each of these values are classified according to whose interests are best served. The values in Table 1 (several of which were adopted from the Rokeach (1973) value survey) represent both the individual and collective interests of an individual, and can serve as guiding principles when making any number of consumption-related decisions. More importantly, these values do not assume that individuals must necessarily make tradeoffs between personal and collective interests. People can use these guiding principles (values) in their lives in a variety of purchase situations for their self-interest (collective-interest) without necessarily conflicting with their collective-interest (self-interest). Schwartz has provided a meaningful interpretation of individualism-collectivism at the individual level that does not operate on the assumption of a dichotomous trade-off between personal goals and collective goals. His list of universal values represent a more fine-tuned approach to measuring differences in behavior between cultural groups based on individual or collective motivational types.

Extension of Individualism-Collectivism Values to Consumer Behavior

Compared to values reflecting universal life goals, one's motivational values provide an alternative, more finely tuned approach to understanding cultural and individual differences in behavior (Schwartz, 1990). When extended to consumer decision making, motivational value types may provide better insight to measuring differences in behavior among different cultures at the individual level.

According to Schwartz (1994), much can be gained from alternative operationalizations that embed values in concrete and varied everyday situations (i.e., such as consumption decisions). Carman (1978) for example, has developed a general model that integrates interest, time-use activities, roles and lifestyle values as a determinant of consumer behavior. And Beatty, Kahle, Homer & Misra (1985) provide an alternative List of Values (LOV) that has proved to be helpful in understanding important consumption-related decisions. Based on this perspective we sought to explore the robustness of Schwartz's universal value types by adapting five individualistic and four collectivist values to consumer behavior. Schwartz's tenth value item was omitted since it captures dimensions of both individualism and collectivism. The consumer behavior-oriented value items were modeled after typical multiattribute items used in marketing (Lutz and Bettman 1977; Peter and Olson 1994). Three items were developed for each value type. The items measured respondents' product belief, favorability (evaluation), and purchase intention scores for each of the value types. Two examples of these items include:

Individualist Values (e.g., Hedonism)

1. How likely is it that the products you own are a reflection of pleasure seeking and self gratification?

Extremely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely likely

2. Please indicate the favorability of products that are a reflection of pleasure seeking and self gratification.

Very bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very good

3. How likely is it that the primary reason you purchase goods for yourself is pleasure seeking and self gratification?

Extremely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely likely

Collectivist Values (e.g., Tradition)

25. How likely is it that the products you own reflect tradition, and acceptance of the customs that your culture or religion impose?

Extremely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely likely

26. Please indicate the favorability of products that reflect tradition, and acceptance of the customs that your culture or religion impose.

Very bad -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Very good

27. How likely is it that the primary reason you purchase goods is to reflect tradition, and acceptance of the customs that your culture or religion impose?

Extremely unlikely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Extremely likely

* A complete item listing is available from the authors.


In order to examine whether or not the individualism-collectivism construct is dichotomous, we need to look at the relationship between an individual's overall value orientation and their responses to the underlying value types of the individualism-collectivism construct. If individualism-collectivism is dichotomous, then we expect that there will be no differences in an individual's overall value orientation and their responses to specific underlying dimensions. That is, idiocentrics should consider individual value types significantly more important than allocentrics, and conversely, allocentrics should consider collective value types significantly more important than idiocentrics. One method to test these relationships is to treat individualism-collectivism as a dichotomous construct and compare the underlying value structure for allocentrics and idiocentrics. Additionally, it is important that we identify which of the nine specific underlying value types, if any, are considered more important and which are considered equally important for allocentrics and idiocentrics in a consumer-related context.


Data were obtained from 112 undergraduate business students. The sample consisted of 48 males and 64 females who attend a large southwestern state university.


Allocentric/Idiocentric Measure. A 16-item adaptation of Triandis et al.'s (1990) individualism-collectivism scale was chosen for this study to measure subject's allocentric and idiocentric tendencies. These attitude items were used in previous studies to measure individual-level differences both across and within cultures. Subjects were asked to consider each of the 16 items, and to indicate, using a nine-point Likert scale, their degree of agreement or disagreement with the statements. We then summed the response to these 16 items and divided by the total number of items to produce a mean allocentric-idiocentric score.

Consumer Value Scale. A 27-item instrument was developed using Schwartz's (1990) Individual and Collective value types. This instrument consists of items representing nine values (five individual values and four collective values). The subjects responded to three items for each value type. One item represented each of the consumer behavior components: product beliefs, favorability (evaluation), and purchase intention. The items were scaled ranging from extremely unlikely (1) to extremely likely (9) for product belief and purchase intention items, and from very bad (-3) to very good (+3) for favorability (evaluation).


Overall Individualist vs. Collectivist Value Orientation

In order to identify the latent dimensions or constructs represented in Triandis et al.'s Allocentrism/Idiocentrism items, common factor analysis with oblique rotation was performed. Additionally, the variables were allowed to be correlated for subsequent testing as to whether or not the individualism-collectivism construct is dichotomous. Initial analysis revealed three factors with Eigenvalues greater than 1. When compared to previous research by Triandis et al. (1990), which also investigated U.S. allocentrics and U.S. idiocentrics, the results replicated fairly closely previous work. Although Triandis et al. used principal components factor analysis producing a four factor solution (two individualist and two collectivist factors), our findings produced factors that are conceptually identical (e.g., two individualist and one collectivist factor, with nearly identical variable loadings). If individualism and collectivism traits are dichotomous and are opposed to one another, then the individualist and collectivist factors capturing each dimension should be negatively correlated and significant. However, additional analysis revealed that for the three factors produced in the common factor solution, each of the bivariate correlations were small, positive and not significant. These results indicate that although the individualism-collectivism scale captures fairly unique cultural dimensions, these dimensions are not necessarily dichotomous and appear to be orthogonal.



The Relationship Between Overall Value Orientation and Underlying Dimensions

According to Schwartz (1990), in order to further assess the adequacy of the individualism-collectivism dichotomy at the individual level, we need to look at the relationship between an individual's overall value orientation and their responses to a more fine-tuned set of motivational type values that represent the underlying dimensions of individualism-collectivism. If individualism-collectivism is sufficient as a dichotomy, then one would expect to see no differences in an individual's overall value orientation and their responses to specific underlying dimensions.

Additionally, to explore how individualism-collectivism relates to values relevant to consumer behavior, we classified subjects according to the allocentric-idiocentric scale administered. Using the mean scores from this scale we then conducted a median split (Median=5.67). Consistent with Triandis et al. (1990), the use of U.S. student subjects resulted in a restricted range of idiocentric-allocentric scores, with idiocentrics ranging from 3.33 - 5.60 (F=4.96), and allocentrics ranging from 5.67 - 8.13 (F=6.28). Student subjects were classified as "moderate individualists" versus "moderate collectivists." Since there were seven subjects that fell on the median of 5.67, and since these scores were above the midpoint (5) on the scale, these subjects were included in the "moderate collectivist" group. Next, we compared the importance of the overall value types (individual and collective) for each of the two groups (allocentric-idiocentric). Finally, we compared the importance of the nine specific motivational value types relative to product beliefs, favorability (evaluation), and purchase intention for two groups. See Table 2 for comparisons.

Our results indicate that overall individualistic values are more important for product beliefs of the moderate individualist than for the moderate collectivist group. Similarly, overall collectivist values more favorably affect purchase intentions of the moderate collectivists compared to moderate individualists. Examination of group differences on the five subtypes of individualist values reveals that moderate individualists gave higher priority to hedonism for purchase intentions and to achievement for product beliefs. Considering the group differences on the four collectivist values reveals that moderate collectivists gave higher priority to universal prosocial values for purchase intentions while rating the tradition value higher on product beliefs, favorability, and purchase intentions.

Overall results generally support the notion that allocentrics and idiocentrics differ on the cultural value orientation individualism-collectivism. However, a closer look at the underlying dimensions of this construct suggests that certain motivational values are more important for allocentric and idiocentric consumers. More specifically, the results indicate that these differences (or similarities) vary as a function of product beliefs, favorability (evaluation) and purchase intentions. This issue will be addressed in more detail in the discussion section.


Research efforts based on comparisons between cultural groups at the country level should consider the limitations associated with extending culture-level correlations to individual-level behavior. Hofstede's culture-level measurements are based on the sums of individual characteristics and may have limitations when extended to individual behavior (e.g., beliefs, evaluations and intentions). Many refer to this phenomenon as an ecological fallacy. The reverse ecological fallacy is also true; where individual-level differences are extended to country-level comparisons. The existence of ecological and reverse ecological fallacies provides evidence that researchers should separate the levels of analysis and interpret results according to the appropriate level under investigation.

Hofstede's (1980) work on individualism-collectivism was originally conceived as a dichotomous construct at the country level. Numerous studies (including those mentioned in this paper) in many respects support the notion of country (or culture) level differences based on the dichotomous tradeoff between personal and ingroup goals. However, when examining individual-level behavior, researchers should heed caution to the assumption that individualist and collectivist values are opposed to one another. Recent evidence suggests that in order to better understand how differences between individuals' beliefs, evaluations and intentions are related to individual differences in value priorities, that researchers examine the individual-level value types that underlie the individualism-collectivism construct (Schwartz, 1994). This suggests that although culture-level values shape and form individual's beliefs, attitudes and behaviors, they may not determine them.

Schwartz (1990) offers several speculative hypotheses about the types of values likely to discriminate between individuals in societies that have both individualist and collectivist tendencies. Value types thought to be more important for collectivists include tradition, restrictive conformity, and prosocial values. Self-direction, stimulation and social power are hypothesized to be more important for individualists. Between-group differences for the remaining set of values are believed to be minimal. Comparing the findings (Table 2) to these hypotheses reveals several interesting differences between Schwartz's motivational values that serve as guiding life principles and our motivational values as they pertain to consumer behavior.


Individualists are expected to rate self-direction, stimulation, and social power more highly. Our data does not support the hypothesis for any of these values. Interestingly however, hedonism and achievement are two values rated more highly by the moderate individualist group. Hedonism is shown to affect purchase intentions. The idea of pleasure and sensation seeking is not new to the marketing literature (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982; Celsi, Rose, and Leigh 1993). Sense of achievement value ratings manifest themselves on product beliefs. Consumers' need for achievement and the interrelationship between consumers' self-images and their possessions is an important consumer research topic (Sirgy, 1992).


Consistent with Schwartz's view, tradition appears to be a key value for collectivists in consumer behavior. Group means for product beliefs, evaluations, and purchase intentions are significantly higher for the moderate collectivist group when compared to the moderate individualist group. Additionally, there were no differences between the two groups on security. Although individuals may link their destiny to groups (i.e., family, friends, coworkers), the importance of security values is equally the same in any case. Contrary to Schwartz's speculation, group differences do not emerge on restrictive conformity values. Apparently, the notions of violating social expectations and inclinations to harm others (i.e., restrictive conformity) does not easily manifest itself in consumer decision making situations. Interestingly, one consumer decision making value that rated more highly by collectivists on purchase intention is the universal subset of prosocial values. This value may be described as consuming so as to preserve and enhance the welfare of others, even for those individuals outside the collective ingroup. This finding supports Schwartz's belief that the individualism-collectivism dichotomy fails to consider collectivist values that foster the goals of collectives other than the ingroup (e.g., universal prosocial values).


As business firms move towards globalization of markets, understanding cross-cultural values will become an increasingly important issue. One basic goal of this paper is to illustrate the limitations in applying country-level value orientations to individual-level consumer behavior. In doing so, our results support Schwartz's earlier findings that the individualism-collectivism construct may not be dichotomous at the individual level. A second goal of this paper is to show that the set of motivational value types that individuals find important in consumer decision making situations may differ significantly from value orientations based on a more general social context. Whereas most international marketing decisions are based on country-level similarities and/or differences, the consideration of cross-cultural consumer preferences requires a more fine-tuned approach to identifying differences at the individual level.

Future research should extend our efforts by considering specific areas of consumption, additional populations, and additional methods of measuring values to increase our understanding of the link between values and consumer behavior both at the cultural and the individual level. Additionally, multimethod probes that include surveys, personal interviews, direct observation, and experiments are needed to provide further validation of the link between cultural values and individual consumer behavior. Based on our premise that societal values (i.e., as reflected within advertising appeals) may not always reflect individual-level consumer behavior, further research is necessary to determine similarities and/or differences in specific motivational value types and the degree to which common norms, tastes, and values justify a globalized or customized approach to marketing communications.


Alden, D. L., W. D. Hoyer and C. Lee (1993), "Identifying Global and Culture-Specific Dimensions of Humor in Advertising: A Multinational Analysis," Journal of Marketing, 57 (April), 64-75.

Beatty, S. E., L. Kahle, P. Homer, S. Misra (1985), "Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey," Psychology & Marketing, 2 (3), 181-200.

Belk, R. W., W. J. Bryce and R. W. Pollay (1985), "Advertising Themes and Cultural Values: A Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Advertising," In K.C. Mun and T.C. Chan (eds.), Proceedings of the Inaugural Meeting of the Southeast Asia Region, Hong Kong: Academy of International Business, 11-20.

Carman, J. M. (1978), "Values and Consumption Patterns: A Closed Loop," In H. K. Hunt (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research. Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research, 5, 403-407.

Celsi, Richard L., Randall L. Rose, and Thomas W. Leigh (1993), "An Exploration of High-Risk Leisure Consumption through Skydiving," Journal of Consumer Research 20, (June), 1-23.

Greenwald, A. G., S. J. Breckler and E. C. Wiggins (1986), "Public, Private, and Collective Self-Evaluation: Measurement of Individualistic Differences," Unpublished Manuscript.

Han, S. (1990), Individualism and Collectivism: Its Implications for Cross-Cultural Advertising, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Department of Advertising.

Hecht, M., P. A. Anderson and S. A. Ribeau (1989), "The Cultural Dimensions of Nonverbal

Communication," in Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, eds. M. K. Asante and W. B. Gudykunst, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 163-185.

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

Holbrook, Morris B. and Elizabeth C. Hirschman (1982), "The Experimental Aspects of Consumption: Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun," Journal of Consumer Research 9, (September), 132-140.

Hui, C. H. and H. C. Triandis (1986), "Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Cross-Cultural Researchers," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17, 225-248.

Kale, S. H. (1991), "Culture-specific Marketing Communications: An Analytical Approach," International Marketing Review, 8 (2), 18-30.

Lutz, R. and J. R. Bettman (1977), "Multiattribute Models in Marketing: A Bicentennial Review," in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, eds. A. G. Woodside, J. N. Sheth and P. D. Bennett, New York: Elsevier-North Holland Publishing, 137-150.

McCarty, J. and P. Hattwick (1992), "Cultural Value Orientations: A Comparison of Magazine Advertisements from the United States and Mexico," in Advances in Consumer Research, 19, eds. John F. Sherry, Jr. and Brian Sternthal, Provo, Utah: Association for Consumer Research, 34-38.

Mueller, B. (1987), "Reflections of Culture: An Analysis of Japanese and American Advertising Appeals," Journal of Advertising Research, 27 (June/July), 51-59.

Munson, J. M. and S. H. McIntyre (1978), "Personal Values: A Cross Cultural Assessment of Self Values and Values Attributed to a Distant Cultural Stereotype," in Advances in Consumer Research, 6, ed. Keith Hunt. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Consumer Research, 160-166.

Peter, J. P. and J. C. Olson (1994), Understanding Consumer Behavior, Richard D. Irwin: Homewood, IL.

Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, New york: Free Press.

Schwartz, S. H. (1990), "Individualism-Collectivism: Critique and Proposed Refinements," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21 (2), 139-157.

Schwartz, S. H. (1994), "Beyond Individualism/Collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values," in Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, 18, eds. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, ¦. Kagittibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon: Sage Publications, 85-119.

Sirgy, M. Joseph (1992), "Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (December), 287-300.

Triandis, H. C., C. McCusker, and C. H. Hui (1990), "Multimethod Probes of Individualism and Collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (5): 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C. (1994), "Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of Collectivism and Individualism," in Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, 18, eds. U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, ¦. Kagittibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon: Sage Publications, 41-51.

Zandpour, F., V. Campos, J. Catalano, C. Chang, Y. Cho, R. Hoobyar, S. Jiang, M. Lin, S. Madrid, H. Scheideler, S. Osborn (1994), "Global Reach and Local Touch: Achieving Cultural Fitness in TV Advertising," Journal of Advertising Research, (Sept/Oct), 35-63.