hispanic values and subcultural research

Hispanic Values and Subcultural Research

Humberto Valencia American Graduate School of International Management

Consumer research on Hispanics in the United States has been based on presumable cultural differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. This article investigates the cultural differences hypothesis by testing for cultural value orientations among Hispanics and Whites, using the Rokeach paradigm. Because values are central to culture, they represent a critical test of this hypothesis. The findings point out differences in values between Hispanics and Whites, which may have important consumer behavior implications.

INTRODUCTION

Hispanic consumers in the continental United States represent a sizable market for American marketers with an es- timated $103.2 billion in purchasing power and 16.9 million persons (Bureau of the Census 1985, 1986). Yet research on Hispanics has been sparse, due in part to the unrecognized rapid population growth in the last decade and due to ethnic marketing myopia from business and academia. What little cross-cultural marketing research has been done on Hispanics has been based on presumed cultural differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, namely Whites. (These cultural differences are mostly intuitive assumptions unsupported to any great extent by evidence.) However, if the two populations are not culturally different, it is not valid to expect nor attribute consumer behavior differences to ethnic differences between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. If, on the other hand, the groups are culturally different, it is reasonable to expect differences in consumer behavior due to ethnic effects. In a practical sense this research asks: Are Hispanic people White people with darker skin tones, or are Hispanic people culturally different from Whites?

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Volume 17, Number 1, pages 23-28. Copyright �9 1989 by Academy of Marketing Science. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN 0092-0703.

The first purpose of this study is to test for whether Hispanics and White non-Hispanics differ in their cultural value orientations beyond the observable differences (i.e., language, food, folklore). Since values are central to members of a subculture, they represent a critical test of the cultural differences hypothesis. Furthermore, values are important determinants of consumer behavior, as will be reviewed later.

The second purpose of this study is to investigate whether value differences exist among the major Hispanic national origin subgroups (i.e., Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Cuba). Often these major subgroups have been "lumped" together under the umbrella term Hispanics, presuming Spanish culture homogeneity (i.e., all are Spanish-speaking persons). However, it can be argued that major cultural differences exist between the subgroups on the basis of national culture and immigration pattern differences, even between Mexicans living in California (Cal-Mex) and Texas (Tex-Mex). This test is used to investigate whether or not a pan-Hispanic culture exists. Therefore, the two research hypotheses can be stated as:

HI: There are no overall differences in the cultural values held by Cuban, Tex-Mex, Cal-Mex, and Puerto Rican peoples.

H2: There are no overall differences in the cultural values held by Hispanics and Whites in the United States.

VALUES AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Values have been defined in a marketing context as:

. . . centrally held cognitive elements which stimulate motivation for behavioral response. They exist in an interconnected, hierarchical structure in which global (central core) values are related and connected to generalized consumption-related values which are, in turn, similarly associated with product attributes (Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977, p. 49).

JAMS 23 WINTER, 1989

aNIC VALUES HUMBERTO VALENCIA ;UBCULTURAL RESEARCH

Three other important characteristics of consumer values are: (1) similar values are widely held by most but not all members of a subculture or culture; (2) values are derived from, and modified through, personal, social and cultural learning; and (3) a major role of values is that of "standard" or "criterion" that individuals can use in the formulation of attitudes and guidance of behavior (Clawson and Vinson 1978). Therefore, values are said to lie at the core of culture and to act as a norm for ethnic consumer behavior.

Values affect consumption motives and therefore individual choice criteria (Howard and Sheth 1969). Values shape to some extent what is or is not valued among broad categories of products (Henry 1976). Moreover, Bamhill (1967), Scott and Lamont (1974), Lessig (1975), Henry (1976), Vinson, Scott and Lamont (1977), Omura (1980), and Bozinoff and Cohen (1982) have provided empirical support for the notion that value systems are underlying determinants of product preferences. A more general model linking perceived product attributes to values has been conceptualized by Gutman (1982). Values have also been related to other aspects of consumer behavior, such as mass media usage (Becker and Connor 1981), consumer dissatisfaction (Vinson 1977; Vinson and Strang 1978) and retail patronage (Darden, Erden, Darden and Howell 1979; Becker and Connor 1982; Mason, Durand and Taylor 1983).

Marketing applications of value analysis have been proposed for market segmentation (Vinson and Munson 1976), product planning, promotional strategy, public policy and society (Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977), and retail strategy (Darden 1979). Furthermore, the useofcultural value analysis has been proposed to international marketers for a better understanding of the behavior of culturally diverse consumers (Munson and Mclntyre 1978).

Black/White cultural values research by Rokeach and Parker (1970) found that differences between these two groups were primarily due to socioeconomic (income and education) differences, rather than race. When their analysis controlled for income, only minor value differences were apparent. Thus Rokeach and Parker concluded that the hypothesis of a distinctive Black culture of poverty (i.e., the low income culture) was largely unsupported.

There are a few value surveys of Hispanics, such as the two studies commissioned by the SIN Television Network (Yankelovich, SkeUy and White 1981, 1984). These studies found Hispanics holding strong "traditional" American values regarding upward mobility, materialism, in- dividualism, family and sex roles. Two other studies provide limited insights into Hispanic values. Munson and Mclntyre (1978) presented inconclusive empirical support for our second research hypothesis by showing significant differences in self-reported values among Mexican-American consumers and Anglo and Thai students in Los Angeles using the Rokeach paradigm. Moreover, Popp and Platzer (1986) found differences in business-related values (e.g., economical, aes- thetical, social) among Anglos and Mexicans living near the southern border using a student sample.

In conclusion, the theoretical foundations exist for useful and valuable marketing applications of cultural values. First, however, it must be determined whether value differences between Hispanics ,and non-Hispanics exist.

METHODOLOGY

The instrument used to measure cultural values in Ibis research was adapted from the Rokeach Value Survey-RVS- (1968). The RVS measures individual preference for end-states of existence or terminal values (e.g., family security, exciting life, salvation) and modes of behavior or in- stmmental values (e.g., ambition, independence, respon- sibility). Most reported consumer values studies have used this paradigm. The apparent wide acceptance of the RVS is partially due to the instrument's validity and reliability.

Vinson, Munson and Nakanishi (1977) and Munson and Mclntyre (1978) have empirically validated the existence of two distinct value categories (instrumental and terminal values). Beatty, et al. (1985) have also shown that the RVS has convergent, discriminant and empirical validity for consumer research. Rokeach (1973) and Munson and McIntyre (1978) have demonstrated that the instrument can effective- ly discriminate among people of different backgrounds (e.g., men and women, American and Thai). Additionally, the instrument's test-retest reliability has been assessed as very high in several studies (Rokeach 1973; Robinson and Shaver 1971; Munson and Mclntyre 1978).

Marketing research using the RVS has commonly measured values using Likert-type scaling instead of the original rank-order procedure. The Likert approach has been favored because it is easily administered with minimal in- structions (an important consideration when sampling less educated and lower SES minority respondents), requires less completion time (Munson and Mclntyre 1978), does not re- quire forced ranking of closely held values, and reduces the bias implied by the rankings in favor of deprived values and against satiated values (Clawson and Vinson 1978). Measur- ing values through Likert scaling, however, is not less reli- able than the ranking approach, as Munson and Mclntyre (1978) have demonstrated.

A five-point Likert scale was used in this study. All points in the scale were labeled, as recommended by Boote (1981). The points were labeled "Very Important" (scored as 5) and "Above Average Importance" (4), "Average Importance" (3), "Below Average Importance" (2), and "Not Important" (1). Respondents were instructed to indicate the self-importance of these values as long-term goals in life (terminal values) and as guiding principles for day-to-day activities (instrumental values).

Because many Hispanics do not understand the English language or they do not feel comfortable communicating with it, the questionnaire was translated into Spanish. To ensure proper translation of the instrument, a systematic procedure was used. First, the questionnaire was translated from English to Spanish by a trained bilingual translator. Second, four bilingual translators (a Cuban, a Mexican American, a Puer- to Rican and an American fluent in Spanish) independently back-translated the Spanish version into English for verifica- tion of the conceptual equivalence of the two language forms. Only a few minor differences were found in the back-translation and these were resolved by modifying the wording of the Spanish form. Finally, a committee of bilinguals reviewed the parallel translations to check for consistency in interpreta- tion and to control for connotative as well as denotative mean-


HISPANIC VALUES HUMBERTO VALENCIA AND SUBCULTURAL RESEARCH

ing of the final forms. Moreover, a pretest of the two language forms did not reveal wording or other problems with the instrument. Approximately two-thirds of the Hispanic responses to the final survey were in Spanish. Respondents had the option of selecting either language form of the questionnaire.

Ethnic identification of the respondents was measured by self-report, rather than ascribed. This approach is recommended by Cohen (1978) and Hirschman (1981) because it represents the internal beliefs of the individual and therefore reflects his/her cultural reality. Self-report ethnic measures also eliminate the misclassification bias inherent in using the respondent's surname or country of birth approaches (Valen- cia 1982).

Because many earlier subcultural studies failed to isolate ethnic culture effects from either age or socioeconomic effects, thereby possibly confounding structural group effects with ethnicity (Sturdivant 1973), these two variables were considered as covariates. Hispanics are younger than non- Hispanics (median age 23 versus 31 years of age, respective- ly; Bureau of the Census 1983). Also, since Hispanics have lower average educational attainment levels and are employed in lower occupational status positions than non- Hispanics (Bureau of the Census 1983) they are posited as having lower socioeconomic status than non-Hispanics. Moreover, Rokeach and Parker found that income differences accounted for most of the value differences among Blacks and Whites, rather than cultural differences. In this study, age was measured directly and SES was measured using Duncan's Updated Socioeconomic Index (Siegel 1971).

The statistical procedure used to test the hypotheses was MANCOVA. Terminal and instrumental values were tested separately. MANCOVA was employed because it allows for the simultaneous testing of ethnic effects on the value sets (terminal or instrumental), after controlling for age and socioeconomic status covariation. ANCOVA results were used as a post hoc test to pinpoint individual value differences between the groups.

The data for this study were derived from a total sample of 492 responses obtained from a mail survey sent to New York, San Antonio, Los Angeles and Miami. These cities were selected because they have the largest concentrations of the four major Hispanic subgroups (Puerto Ricans, Tex-Mex, Cal-Mex and Cubans) in this country, and they account for about 42% of the U.S. Hispanic population. The effective response rate from the mail questionnaire was 9.2%, which is understandable given the contact method and Hispanics' lower incidence of answering surveys (Saegert and Benitez 1983). To obtain a more comparable group of Hispanics and Whites, the questionnaires were mailed to systematically sampled (nth select) households from census tracts of the cities mentioned. The selected census tracts were those that had no less than 30% of either Hispanics or Whites to insure proper representation of both Hispanics and Whites in the sample, and a low percentage (i.e., less than ten percent) of other ethnic groups (e.g., Black). Addresses were selected from a computerized residential list obtained from Donnelly Marketing.

After excluding responses from other ethnic groups and deleting a few respondents who did not vary in their response

pattern (i.e., all values rated equally important), 150 Hispanic and 253 White usable responses were analyzed. The Hispanic sample was composed of 28 responses from New York (primarily ethnic Puerto Ricans), 33 responses from San An- tonio and 24 from Los Angeles (primarily ethnic Mexicans), and 65 responses from Miami (primarily ethnic Cubans). A check for nonresponse bias using the "last respondent" method (Armstrong and Overton 1977) indicated that the two groups did not differ markedly on eight demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, income, education, household size, mari- tal status) in any of the four test cities. The only significant differences (p < .05) between early (first quartile) and late (last quartile) respondents were on age in Miami and San An- tonio.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The results of the cultural values comparison across Hispanic subgroups show no overall statistically significant differences in either instrumental or terminal values between Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Tex-Mex, and Cal-Mex, after controlling for age and SES (see Table 1). Moreover, only two isolated differences in instrumental values (i.e., imaginative and obedien0 were statistically significant (p < .05).

The results of the cultural values comparison across Hispanics and Whites show that overall differences exist between the two groups (see Table 2). The conditional F-values for the ethnic effect after adjusting for covariates (age and SES) were significant at the 0.001 level for the terminal value set (F = 3.38) and at the 0.001 level for the instrumental value set (F = 4.46). Moreover, 15 instrumental and 10 terminal value differences were significantly different ( p < .05) across the two ethnic groups.

DISCUSSION

Our principal finding is that Hispanics and Whites in the United States have different value orientations. Because cultural values stimulate motivation for behavioral response (Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977), it is reasonable to expect culturally determined consumer behavior differences between the two groups. At the same time, this finding affirms reported Hispanic cross-cultural studies predicated on assumptions about cultural differences (e.g., Saegert, Hoover and Hilger 1985; Wilkes and Valencia 1985).

These findings support Munson and Mclntyre's (1978) findings showing differences between Mexican-Americans and Anglos, but they do not agree with Rokeach and Parker's (1970) findings with the Black subculture. Rokeach and Parker found differences in Black/White cultural values attributable to socioeconomic status rather than ethnic culture, whereas this Hispanic/White study found cultural value differences attributable to ethnic culture, apart from socioeconomic differences. Three rationales can be provided for this discrepancy. First, Hispanics have been resilient to acculturation into mainstream American life and have preserved much of their culture, language and traditions in the United States (see Yankelovich, Skelly and White 1981,



TABLE 1 Mancova Tests Across Four Instrumental Subgroups Values

Terminal F-Stat* P-Values Instrumental F-Stat* P-Values Values (314) ** Values 0144) **

Wilks' Lambda (54,379) Roots 1 through 3 0.94 0.597 1.26 0.116

2 through 3 0.72 0.873 0.90 0,626 3 through 3 0.58 0,893 0.52 0,930

A comfortable life 1.27 NS Ambitious 0.81 NS An exciting life 1.37 NS Broad-minded 0.37 NS Sense of accomplishment 1.33 NS Capable 1.00 NS A world at peace 0.07 NS Cheerful 0.52 NS A world of beauty 1.66 NS Clean 0.11 NS Equality 0.34 NS Courageous 1.22 NS Family security 2.31 0,079 Forgiving 2.58 NS Freedom 2.22 0.088 Helpful 0.64 NS Happiness 0.11 his Honest 1.09 NS Inner hamaony 1.40 NS Imaginative 3.90 0.010 Mature love 0,20 NS Independent 2.20 0,091 National security 0.66 NS Intellectual 0.22 NS Pleasure 1.44 NS Logical 0.20 0.091 Salvation 0.25 NS Loving 0.37 NS Self-respect 1.30 NS Obedient 3.68 0.014 Social recognition 0.65 NS Polite 0.37 NS True friendship 0.36 NS Responsible 0.81 NS Wisdom 1.26 NS Self-controlled 0.31 NS

*Conditional F Values of the ethnic effect after adjusting for SES and AGE. **P-Values > 0.10 reported as not statistically significant (NS).

1984). On the other hand, Blacks speak English, and for the most part have lost their African cultural ways. Second, Hispanic culture is constantly reinforced by new immigrants from Latin America. During the 1970s, about 650,000 legal immigrants of Mexican origin (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1983) and many more legal and illegal (undocumented)

Hispanics came to this country. Moreover, many Hispanics living in the United States have not severed their ties with the "old country." Third, while some Hispanics have been in the United States for many generations, the major inflow of Hispanics occurred in the last thirty years. Between 1820 and 1980, two-thirds (66.4%) of the total immigration of persons

TABLE 2 Mancova Tests Hispanic vs. White Values

White* Hispanic* F-Stat** Instrumental White* Hispanic* F-Stat** TerminalValues (n=253) (n=150) (1,399) P-Value Values (n=253) (n=150) (1,399) P-Value

Overall Wilks' Lambda (18,382) 3.38 0.001 4.46 0.001

A comfortable life 3.88 4.20 6.32 0.012 Ambitious 3.97 4.22 7.18 0.008 An exciting life 3.63 3.79 0.02 NS Broad-minded 4.17 4.32 3.17 0.076 Sense of

accomplishment 4.15 4.33 0.61 NS Capable 4.30 4.40 1.76 NS A word at peace 4.47 4.53 0.01 NS Cheerful 4.08 4.26 4.15 0.042 A world of beauty 4.03 4.37 5.23 0.023 Clean 4.00 4.49 34.17 0.001 Equality 4.03 4.54 18.57 0 . 0 0 1 Courageous 4.29 4.54 13.49 0.001 Family security 4.52 4.81 14.44 0 . 0 0 1 Forgiving 4.06 4.32 9.29 0.002 Freedom 4.54 4.79 8.34 0.004 Helpful 3.96 4.44 29.57 0.001 Happiness 4.45 4.69 5.05 0.025 Honest 4.58 4.73 7.90 0.005 Inner harmony 4.41 4.78 15.00 0 . 0 0 1 Imaginative 3.85 4.25 18.73 0.001 Mature love 4.32 4.46 0.09 NS Independent 4.34 4.61 11.93 0.001 National security 4.28 4.53 5.93 0.015 Intellectual 4.11 4.31 6.00 0.015 Pleasure 3.85 4.19 4.86 0.028 Logical 4.10 4.38 14.96 0.001 Salvation 3.71 4.25 14.33 0.001 Loving 4.30 4.41 1.36 NS Self-respect 4.53 4.72 1.84 NS Obedient 3.66 4.05 13.19 0.001 Social recognition 3.66 4.03 3.28 0.071 Polite 4.20 4.50 17.17 0.001 True friendship 4.37 4.49 0.01 his Responsible 4.52 4.73 13.89 0.001 Wisdom 4.37 4.61 1.44 NS Self-controlled 4.19 4.51 20.15 0.001

*Mean Values. **Conditional F Values of the ethnic effect after adjusting for SES and Age.



from Latin America and the Caribbean came after 1951 (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service 1984). Therefore, it is possible that not enough time has passed for complete acculturation to have taken place.

The results of the Hispanic subgroups value analysis sug- gest that a fundamental pan-Hispanic culture exists among all Hispanic people. Therefore, it is reasonable to group together the major Hispanic subgroups for marketing strategy pur- poses since they have similar value orientations. However, the findings do not necessarily imply that Hispanic subgroups will manifest these value orientations in the same ways, because each subgroup has unique socioeconomic profiles and idiosyncratic characteristics. Nonetheless, unique subgroup manifestations might be specious of what is essentially the same cultural orientation. For example, family security is a strongly held value by all Hispanics. The older Cuban population may tend to manifest this value more as a concern for parents or older relatives, whereas the younger Mexican population may tend to manifest this value more as a concern for younger children's security. At any rate, both populations hold the same value as an important objective in their lives.

This general conclusion is supported by Yankelovich, Skelly and White who noted a trend toward unity among Hispanics, with fewer differences being manifested among Hispanic subgroups. In fact, their reports come to rather strong conclusions about the Hispanic market:

The background migration and socioeconomic differences among the four subgroups dissolve considerably when it comes to their attitudes and practices as American consumers (1981, p. 5).

This trend toward unity is particularly evident in the way that Hispanics of various national origins feel about each other. They now see far fewer differences among each o ther . . , in the way they speak Spanish, in employment opportunities, in art and in literature . . . . The results of the study indicate that a similar, cohesive trend is taking place among Hispanics, leading to our conclusion. . , that the marketer could consider all Hispanics as a consumer segment (1984, p. 10).

This study offers two key marketing implications. First, global value differences between Hispanics and Whites sug- gest that Hispanics are culturally different beyond the observable differences (e.g., Spanish language, food, music and Catholic religion). Therefore, market strategies aimed at this minority market must go beyond simple replications of majority White market appeals and product offerings. For example, Valencia (1983) reported the following culturally shortsighted approach to the Los Angeles Hispanic market. A radio station ran a contest in which the prize was two tickets to Disneyland, but the participation by Hispanics was dis- appointing. When the number of tickets increased, interest in the contest increased considerably. It appears that giving away two tickets was not attractive enough to the family- oriented Hispanic. Moreover, Hispanic market strategies that are not more than Spanish language translations of general market strategies run the risk of being culturally incongruent.

As such, these strategies can be ineffective or even rejected by Hispanic consumers.

Second, marketers can develop strategies aimed at Hispanics on the basis of those values that are important to them. For example, Hispanics had higher than Whites average value scores on imaginative, independent, comfortable life, pleasure, cheerful, polite, responsible and self-controlled. These values can be hypothetically related to product planning, promotional suategy, patronage behavior and shopping orientations, among other things. Imaginative and independent consumers are more concerned with products that give them individuality and self-expression (Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977). Comfortable life and pleasure-seeking consumers are more interested in products with style and ex- citement (Scott and Lamont 1974). Cheerful consumers are more interested in advertising campaigns emphasizing pleasant, happy themes. Polite customers are more likely to patronize stores with courteous, helpful personnel. Self-controlled and responsible customers are more likely to be economic shoppers (see Stone 1954). However, these hypothesized relationships must be verified because domain- specific values (i.e., second level values acquired through ex- perience) and external environment factors can mediate between global values (as studied herein) and marketplace preferences or.behaviors (Vinson, Scott and Lamont 1977).

REFERENCES

Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. "Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys." Journal of Marketing Research 14 (August): 396- 402.

Bamhill, J. Allison. 1967. "Marketing and Cultural Anthropology: A Con- ceptual Relationship." University of Washington Business Review 27 (Autumn): 73-84.

Beatty, Sharon E., Lynn R. Kahle, Pamela Homer and Shekhar Misra. 1985. "Alternative Measurement Approaches to Consumer Values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey." Psychology and Marketing 2 (Fall): 181-200.

Becker, Boris W. and Patrick E. Connor. 1981. "Personal Values of the Heavy User of Mass Media." Journal of Advertising Research 21 (Oc- tober): 37--43.

and, . 1982. "The Influence of Personal Values on Attitude and Choice Behavior." In As Assessment of Marketing Thought and Prac- tice. Eds. Bruce J. Walker, et al. Chicago: American Marketing Associa- tion.

Boote, Alfred S. 1981. "Reliability Testing of Psychographic Scales." Jour- nal of Advertising Research 21 (October): 53-60.

Bozinoff, Lome and Robert Cohen. 1982. "The Effects of Personal Values and Usage Situations on Product Attribute Importance." In An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice. Eds. Brace J. Walker, et al. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Bureau of the Census. 1983. "Conditions of Hispanics in America Today." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bureau ofthe Census. 1985. "Persons of Spanish Origin in the United States: March 1985." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, P-20, No. 403.

Bureau of the Census. 1986. "Money Income of Households, Families and Persons in the United States: 1984." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, P-60, No. 151.

Clawson, G. Joseph and Donald E. Vinson. 1978. "Human Values: A His- torical and Interdisciplinary Analysis." In Advances in Consumer Research V. Ed. Keith Hunt. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Con- sumer Research.

Cohen, Ronald. 1978. "Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology." An- nual Review of Anthropology 7: 379-403.

Darden, William R. 1979. "A Patronage Model of Consurner Behavior." In



Competitive Structure in Retail Markets: The Department Store Perspec- tive. FAds. Ronald Starnpfl and ~liT~beth C. Hirschman. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

, Orhan Erden, Donna K. Darden and Roy Howell. 1979. "Consumer Values and Shopping Orientations." In Proceedings of the Southwestern Marketing Association. Eds., C. Haring, G.E. Kiser a~d R.D. Whiu. Charleston, South Carolina: Southwestern Marketing Association.

and Jo Ann Schwinghammer. 1983. "The Moderating Effects of Human Values on Perceived Quality: A Causal Model." In Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology. Ed. James C. Anderson. Washington, D.C.: American Psychology Association, Division 23.

Guunan, Jonathan. 1982. "A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization Processes." Journal of Marketing 46 (Spring): 60-72.

Henry, Walter A. 1976�9 "Cultural Values Do Correlate with Consumer Be- havior." Journal of Marketing 13 (May): 121-127.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1981. "American Jewish Fahnicity: Its Relation- ship to Some Selected Aspeas of Consumer Behavior." Journal of Marketing 45 (Summer): 102-110.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth. 1969�9 The Theory orb uyer Behavior. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Lassig, V. Parker. 1 975.' 'A Measurement of Dependencies Between Values and Other Levels of Consumer's Belief Space." Journal of Business Research 3 (July): 227-240.

Mason, J. harry, Richard M. Durand and James L. Taylor�9 1983. "Retail Patronage: A Causal Analysis of Antecedent Factor�9 In Patronage Be- havior and Retail Management. Eds. William R. Darden and Robert F. Lusch. New York: North Holand Elsevier�9

Munson, J. Michael and Shelby H. McIntyre. 1978. "Personal Values: A Cross Cultural Assessment of Self Values and Values Auributed to a Dis- tant Cultural Stereotype." In Advances for Consumer Research. Ed. Keith Hunt�9 Ann Arbor, Michigan: Association for Consumer Research.

Omura, Glen S. 1980. "Cultural Values as an Aid in Understanding Domes- tic Venus Foreign Car Ownership." In Evolving Marketing Thought far 1980. Eds. John H. Summey and Ronald D. Taylor. Carbondale, nlinois: Southern Marketing Association.

POPp, Gary E. and William B. Piatzer. 1986. "A Study of Business Related Values in Two Conntries: Interior and Border Areas." In Southwestern Marketing Association Proceedings. Ed. Thomas D. Jensen.

Robinson, J.P. and P.R. Shaver, Eds. 1971. Measures of Social Psychologi- cal Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.

Rokeach, Milton. 1968-1969. "The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research." Public Opinion Quarterly 32 (Winter): 547-559.

- - and Seymour Parker. 1970. "Values as Social Indicators of Poverty and Race Relations in America." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (March): 97-111.

-. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press. Saegert, Joel and Patti Benitez. 1983. "Response Rates to Mail Question-

naires in an Ethnic Minority Population." In Proceedings of the Division of Consumer Psychology. Ed. James C. Anderson. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, Division 23.

Saegert, Joel, Robert J. Hoover and Marye T. Hilger. 1985�9 "Characteristics of Mexican-American Consumers." Journal of Consumer Research 12 (June): 104-109.

Schuhmann, Frank K. 1972. Personal Values and Consumer Behavior. Dis- sertation. University of Colorado�9

Scott, Jerome E. and Lawrence M. Lamont. 1974. "Relating Consumer Values to Consumer Behavior: A Model and Method for Investigation." In Increasing Marketing Productivity and Conceptual and Methodologi- calFoundations of Marketing. Ed. Thomas V. Greer. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

Siegel, Paul M. 1971. Prestige in American Occupational Structure. Disser- tation. University of Chicago.

Stone, Gregory P. 1954. "City Shoppers and Urban Identification: Observa- tion in the Social Psychology of City Life." American Journal of Sociol- o&y 60 (July): 36-45.

Sturdivant, Frederick D. 1973. "Subculture Theory: Poveay, Minorities and Marketing." In Consumer Behavior: Theoretical Sources. Eds. Scott F. Ward and Thomas S. Robertson. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- HaIL

U.S, Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1984. "U.S. Immigration 1820-1977." Cited in Humberto Valencia, The US�9 Hispanic Market. New York: FIND/SVP.

Valenda, Humberto. 1982. "Self Report Measures Find Elusive Hispanic Consumers." Marketing News 23 (May 14): 19.

�9 1983. "Point of View: Avoiding Hispanic Market Blunders." Jour. hal of Advertising Research 23 (December-January): 19-22.

Vinson, David E. and J. Michael Munson. 1976. "Personal Values: An Ap- proach to Marketing Segmentation." In Marketing 1776--1976 and Beyond. Ed. Kenneth L. Bemhardt` Chicago: American Marketing As- sociation.

�9 1977. "Personal Values as a Dimension of Consumer Discontent," In Contemporary Marketing Thought. Eds. B. Grecnberg and D.N. Bel- lenger. Chicago: American Marketing Association.

, Jerome E. Scott and Lawrence Lamont` 1977. "The Role of Per- sonal Values in Marketing and Consumer Behavior." Journal of Market- ing 41 (April): 44-50.

, J. Michael Munsnn and Masao Nakanishi. 1977. "An Investigation of the Rokeach Value Survey for Consumer Research Applications." In Advances in Consumer Research IV. Ed. William O. Perrault, Jr. Atlanta: Association for Consumer Research.

and Roger A. Strang. 1978. "Policy Implications of a Values Ap- proach to Consumer Dissatisfaction." In Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association. Eds. R.S. Franz, R.M. Hopkins and A. Toma. Lafayette, Louisiana: Sonthem Marketing Association.

Wilkes, Robert E. and Humberto Valencia. 1985. "A Note on Generic Pur- chaser Generalizations and Subcultural Variations." Journal of Market. /rig 49 (Summer): 114-120.

Yankelovich, Skelly, and White. 1981. Spanish USA. New York: SIN Na- tinnal Television Network.

- - , and ,1984. Spanish USA. New York: SIN Nation- t

al Television Network.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

HUMBERTO VALENCIA is Associate Professor of Market- ing at the American Graduate School of International Management (Thunderbird). He received a Ph.D. in Market- ing from Georgia State University. Dr. Valencia has published significantly on the Hispanic market, including ar- ticles in the Journal of Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research, Business Horizons and other business journals and proceedings. He is also author of The U.S. Hispanic Market Report. Dr. Valencia is past-President of the Business As- sociation of Latin American Studies.


hispanic values and subcultural research

Documents