Globalization Attitude, Global Consumption Orientation and Global Brand

Perceptions

Author Information:

Petra Riefler, PhD

Department of International Marketing

University of Vienna, Bruenner Strasse 72, 1210 Vienna, Austria

tel: +43 (1) 4277 38037, fax: + 43 (1) 4277 38034,

e-mail: petra.riefler@univie.ac.at.

1

Globalization Attitude, Global Consumption Orientation and Global Brand

Perceptions

Abstract:

Global brands and their benefits for companies and consumers have been of vital

interest in recent research. Lately, however, some critical voices have challenged the

assumption that globalness automatically equates with consumer preference. Indeed, negative

stances towards economic globalization are persistent within some consumer segments, which

consequently can affect the acceptance and success of global brands. Extant marketing

literature however falls short in explaining negative attitudes towards global brands as well as

empirically investigating the influence of globalization attitudes on global brands. Against

this background, this study aims at (1) examining the relationship between globalization

attitude and global consumption orientation, (2) investigating a set of consumer characteristics

as potential antecedents for both constructs, and (3) estimating the influence of both

constructs on brand evaluations, brand attitudes, and purchase intentions of actual global

brands.

Keywords: globalization attitude, GCO, global brands

2

Introduction

Since the early 1980s, marketing literature has highlighted the homogenization of

consumer needs and desires across the globe (Levitt, 1983). This idea consequently suggests

the development of global markets which companies can address with a single product or

service (Keillor et al., 2001). In line with this perspective, many multinational companies

have altered their brand portfolios in favor of global brands during the last decades

(Steenkamp et al., 2003; Schuiling & Kapferer, 2004). From a corporate perspective, key

motivations for launching global brands are (a) the exploration of economy of scale effects

(Yip, 1995), (b) the acceleration of time to market for innovations (Neff, 1999), and (c) the

creation of a global image (Kapferer 1997).

From a consumer perspective, extant literature focuses primarily on conceptualizing

and operationalizing global consumers. In this vein, Alden et al. (2006, p. 228) introduced the

concept of global consumption orientation (GCO), which describes a set of “attitudinal

responses to the global diffusion on consumption choices”. Steenkamp and de Jong

(forthcoming) use a similar approach by proposing the concepts of general attitudes towards

global brands (AGP) and local brands (ALP). Both, Alden et al. (2006) as well as Steenkamp

and Jong (forthcoming), distinguish four attitudinal responses of consumers to global brands.

These responses comprise (1) a conscious opt for global alternatives (i.e. homogenization),

(2) the avoidance of local brands in favor of local alternatives (i.e. localization), (3) the

purchase of both global as well as local brands (i.e. glocalization), or (4) no interest in cultural

themes of products (i.e. alienation).

3

In terms of explaining why consumers show differing attitudes towards global brands,

literature however provides only limited insights. Consumers holding a positive AGP tend to

be innovative, educated and to score high on Schwartz’ (1992) values of power and

universalism (Steenkamp & de Jong, forthcoming). Based on Alden et al.’s (2006) study,

global consumers adhere to materialism and are not susceptible to normative influence.

Moreover, both studies find an impact of consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987)

on global brand attitudes. The pattern of this influence however differs; while consumer

ethnocentrism directly impacts AGP in Steenkamp and de Jong’s (forthcoming) study, it

mediates the influence of GCO on brand attitudes in Alden et al.’s (2006) study. Beyond these

insights, extant marketing literature fails to provide comprehensive knowledge on antecedents

of consumers’ global consumption orientation and their consequences for consumption

patterns across different product categories (Alden et al., 2006; Cleveland et al., 2009).

One such potential driver of consumers’ attitudes towards global brands is their

attitude towards economic globalization per se. Targeting globalization as an object of protest

is indeed widespread (Holton & Phillips, 2001). For consumers who take a negative stance

towards economic globalization, global brands can symbolize cultural homogenization and

power of global companies (Holt, 2002). For these consumers, brand globalness stands for

crushing local competition and homogenizing local cultures (Thompson et al., 2006).

Considering this meaning transfer of meaning, it is to assume that global brands can either be

associated with benefits or drawbacks of the ongoing globalization (Bauer et al., 2006).

Empirically, Dimofte et al. (2008) provide first evidence for a positive link between

consumers’ attitude towards economic globalization and their attitude towards brand

globalness. Their study was, however, referred to ‘global brand’ in a generic term rather than

using real brand names. Moreover, they examined global brand attitudes only, rather than

4

including (managerially relevant) outcomes of brand evaluations and purchase intentions (as,

for example, suggested by Öszomer and Altaras).

Against this background, our study builds upon the idea that globalization attitude is a

decisive factor for the perception of global brands and aims at advancing current knowledge

on this relationship. In particular, the present study aims at (1) examining the relationship

between attitude towards economic globalization and global consumption orientation, (2)

investigating a set of consumer characteristics as potential drivers for both constructs, and (3)

testing the influence of both constructs on brand evaluations, brand attitudes, and purchase

intentions of actual global brands.

In the following, we first provide a brief conceptual background of the focal

constructs. In a next step, we introduce the theoretical model and derive hypotheses. This is

followed by a description of the study design and a presentation of key results. These results

are subsequently discussed. Finally, the paper concludes with a summary and endeavors for

future research.

Conceptual Background

According to consumer culture theory, individuals in today’s postmodern world define

and orient their core identities in relation to consumption (Holt, 2002). At the same time,

consumers experience a mélange of local culture(s) and globalization influences, which

renders localism and globalism to the “tow axial principles of our age” (Tomlinson, 1999, p.

90). Globalization refers to the “process of reducing barriers between countries and

encouraging closer economic, political, and personal interaction” (Spears et al., 2004, p. 57).

Consumers take various stances towards this development, and attitudes may range from pro-

globe to anti-globe (Dimofte et al., 2008). In our study, we will particularly focus on

5

economic globalization including the free movement of capital, products and labor, since we

operate in a consumption-specific context.

Global consumption orientation (Alden et al., 2006) is conceptualized as a set of

attitudes. Attitudes describe responses“in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with

respect to a given object” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p. 6). GCO describes a set of such

responses to global product/service offerings and relates to the self-concepts of individuals,

that is aspiring to global citizenship or adhering to local customs and traditions. GCO is a

consumption-specific concept, in which it differentiates from globalization attitudes which are

generalized attitudes. Alden et al. (2006) operationalize GCO as specific to product categories

(i.e., lifestyle, entertainment, furnishings, and clothing). For this study, we use lifestyle as

consumption domain as it is the broadest category and comprises many consumption-related

aspects.

Model Hypotheses

Figure 1 depicts the proposed theoretical model, which comprises (a) globalization

attitude and GCO as focal constructs, (b) potential drivers of globalization attitude and GCO,

and (c) brand-related outcome variables. The antecedents include variables associated with

national attachment (consumer cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism), psychological

variables (consumer innovativeness, risk aversion) and demographic variables (sex, age,

education, location). As outcome variables, three key variables of consumer behavior are

modeled, i.e. brand evaluation, brand attitude, and purchase intention. Finally, the model

incorporates brand familiarity as a control variable for the brand-related outcomes. In the

following, the key hypotheses are briefly outlined.

6

Insert Figure 1 about here

Cosmopolitan consumers are “open-minded individual[s] whose consumption

orientation transcends any particular culture, locality or community and who appreciate[]

diversity including trying products and services from a variety of countries” (Riefler &

Diamantopoulos, 2009, p. 415). Sociology literature shows that the acceptance of foreign

cultures and traditions is a key driver of attitudes towards globalization (Beck & Sznaider,

2006). Moreover, the consumption of global brands constitutes a vehicle to enhance the

cosmopolitan self-concept (Thompson & Tambyah, 1999). In line with this argument, Alden

et al. (2006) find that consumers with positive GCO hold higher levels of cosmopolitanism.

H1a: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts globalization attitude.

H1b: Consumer cosmopolitanism positively impacts GCO.

Consumer ethnocentrism, which represents “consumer beliefs about the

appropriateness, indeed morality, of purchasing foreign-made products” (Shimp & Sharma,

1987, p. 280), is a key characteristic on an individual consumer level for explaining attitudes

towards domestic and foreign brands (for a review, see Shankarmahesh, 2004). Since

ethnocentric consumers are concerned about to the domestic economy, they would

consequently not be identified as global consumers (Keillor et al., 2001). Instead, they should

avoid global brand originating from other countries (Öszomer & Altaras, 2008). Steenkamp

and de Long (forthcoming) find a positive influence of CET on their AGP construct, whereas

Alden et al. (2006) report a mediating effect of CET on global brand attitudes. Conceptually,

we expect CET to drive attitudes towards globalization and global consumption. Additionally,

we will test alternative models specifying CET as moderator and mediator, respectively.

H2a: Consumer ethnocentrism negatively impacts globalization attitude.

7

H2b: Consumer ethnocentrism negatively impacts GCO.

Consumer innovativeness describes a “predisposition to buy new and different

products and brands rather than remain with previous choices and consumer patterns”

(Steenkamp et al., 1999, p. 671). Innovative consumers search for new consumption

experiences to fulfill their need for change (Steenkamp & Gielens, 2003). Since globalization

is strongly associated with the homogenization of consumption (Holt, 2002; Thompson et al.,

2006), the reduction of the choice set is a consequence in the long run. Consequently, we

expect consumers in favor of diversity in their consumption experience not to be in favor of

globalized brand portfolios. This expectation is in strong opposition to Steenkamp and de

Jong’s (forthcoming) argument on a positive relation of innovativeness and global

consumption, which they base on the image of modernity and progress of global brands.

H3a: Consumer innovativeness is negatively related to globalization attitude.

H3b: Consumer innovativeness is negatively related to GCO.

Signaling theory proposes that global brands enjoy lower perceived risk as brand

globalness signals brand quality (Erdem & Swait, 1998). In other words, consumers who are

risk averse should appreciate global brands and hence exhibit a global consumption

orientation. In terms of globalization attitude, this argument seems less tenable and we do not

expect any particular influence of risk aversion.

H4a: Risk aversion has no influence on globalization attitude.

H4b: Risk aversion positively impacts GCO.

Consumers holding positive attitudes towards the economic globalization should

consequently be more oriented towards global products. The conceptual distinctiveness has

8

been discussed earlier in the paper; statistical investigation of the discriminant validity will be

provided later in the paper.

H5: Globalization attitude positively impacts GCO.

Marketing literature provides a number of studies that show a positive impact of

perceived globalness on perceived quality (e.g., Steenkamp et al., 2003; Holt et al., 2004). We

expect that this pattern is influenced by globalization attitudes, i.e. consumers who are

positive about globalization hold more positive product perceptions of global brands than

others. For the GCO construct, to our best knowledge, literature provides no studies on its

impact on global brand evaluation. Since GCO implies a preference for global brands, we

expect that brand evaluation to be positively influenced.

H6: Globalization attitude positively impacts global brand evaluation.

H7: GCO positively impacts global brand evaluation.

In line with the belief-attitude-behavior model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), positive

relationships from brand evaluation to brand attitude as well as from brand attitude to

purchase intentions are expected. Additionally, a direct effect of age on all brand-related

variables is included, as age is relevant for some of the focal product categories (see next

section).

Methodology

We used a survey-based design for investigating the model presented in Figure 1. To

assess GCO, we used Alden et al.’s (2006) forced-choice measure for consumer lifestyles. All

other constructs were measured on 7-point Likert scale formats with 1=do not agree at all and

9

7=fully agree. For attitude towards globalization, we used five items from Spears et al.

(2004), consumer ethnocentrism was measured using the short 10-item CETSCALE version

(Shimp & Sharma, 1987), consumer cosmopolitanism was measured on a 12-item scale based

on Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009), for consumer innovativeness we used Baumgartner

and Steenkamp’s (1996) scale, and for risk aversion Donthu and Garcia’s scale. Moreover, we

assessed brand evaluation on 4 items from Parameswaran and Pishoardi’s scale (1994), global

brand attitude based on Alden et al. (2006), and finally intention to buy based on Klein et al.

(1998) and Petrevu and Lord (1994). The questionnaire furthermore included demographic

variables (gender, age, education, residential area) and control variables, that is perceived

brand globalness (Batra et al., 2000) and brand familiarity (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). A pre-test

with ten consumers using the protocol approach (Diamantopoulos & Reynolds, 1998) ensured

that all items were comprehensible and no difficulties in answering occurred.

The selection of brands was identical to Alden et al.’s (2006) study and included

brands with (a) differing levels of product category involvement, and (b) differing importance

of hedonic versus utilitarian characteristics. The four brands included in the study were (1)

Coke (low involvement/hedonic), (2) Colgate (low involvement/utilitarian), (3) Sony (high

involvement/hedonic), and (4) Whirlpool (high involvement/utilitarian). We selected Austria

as research setting as the country ranks second in the KOF globalization index worldwide

(http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/) but, at the same time, is among the most critical against

economic globalization (News, 2007).

For data collection, we applied an area sampling procedure (e.g., Lohr 1999) of zip

code areas with quotas for sex, education and location (i.e., metropolitan vs. rural) and then

randomly chose an equal number of zip codes from each area. A total of 5,900 households in

these pre-selected zip code areas were then targeted with the questionnaire together with a

cover letter soliciting participation and a pre-paid envelope for returning the questionnaire. In

10

total, we received 442 completed questionnaires; after excluding questionnaires due to

missing values, the sample used for analysis comprised 429 consumers; 58 percent were

females, the average age was 46.6 years (range: 13 to 93 years), and 60 percent lived in a rural

area. A sample of 429 consumers was collected by applying

In a first step, we estimated a reduced model of Figure 1 including globalization

attitude, GCO and the antecedent variables in order to investigate the drivers of the focal

constructs. In a second step, we estimated the full model for each brand separately to

investigate the impact of the focal constructs on brand-related variables. In a third step, we

estimated a number of alternative models for comparison. We ran all estimations using

LISREL 8.80 and will present the findings in the following.

Findings

The reduced model showed satisfactory model fit (χ2 = 344.28 (d.f. = 235); RMSEA

= .053; SRMR = .060; NNFI = .939; CFI = .952). With regard to the antecedents of

globalization attitude, results show a positive and significant impact of consumer

cosmopolitanism (in support of H1a) and a negative and significant impact of consumer

innovativeness (in support of H3a). In contrast, consumer ethnocentrism fails to show any

significant impact on GCO; thus rejecting H2a. As expected in H4a, risk aversion also shows

no influence on globalization attitude. Furthermore, none of the demographic variables

included in the model show any significant impact on globalization attitude. In total, the

antecedent variables explained 19% of variance in globalization attitude.

With regard to GCO, results show a negative and significant influence of consumer

innovativeness (in support of H3b) and education. As expected in H5, a positive and

significant impact of globalization attitude on GCO was revealed. Apart from these variables,

11

all other antecedent variables were non-significant. Hence, consumer ethnocentrism again

failed to show any important impact (thus rejecting H2b). Against our expectation in H4b,

risk aversion was not found to drive GCO. Finally, GCO showed to be independent of sexes,

ages and location. In total, the antecedent variables explained 22% of variance in GCO.

Turning attention to the relationship between globalization attitude and GCO, results

showed the expected positive link from the former to the latter construct and distinct

antecedents. In terms of discriminant validity (Netemeyer et al., 2003), the construct inter-

correlation is low (.23, p<.01) and statistically supports the conceptual distinctiveness of the

constructs. For additional evidence, we modeled the single measure of GCO as an indicator of

globalization attitudes in a CFA. This approach did only explain .09% of the indicator

variance and therefore provides further support for discriminant validity.

Subsequently, we estimated the full model in Figure 1, which yielded good overall fit

for all brands (see Table 1). Referring to the effects of globalization attitude and GCO on

global brand evaluations, findings provide partial support for H6. While showing a positive

impact of globalization attitude on brand evaluation for all four brands, this impact proves to

be significant for only two brands (Coke, Whirlpool). GCO, in contrast, shows a positive and

significant impact on the brand evaluation of Coke but not for any other brand; thus only

partly supporting H7.

In line with the belief-attitude-behavior model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), positive and

significant relationships from brand evaluation to brand attitude as well as from brand attitude

to purchase intention are found for all brands. Moreover, brand familiarity positively impacts

brand evaluation for all brands and brand attitude for the high-involvement brands (Sony and

Whirlpool). Finally, age has direct negative effects on brand evaluations for the hedonic

brands (Coke, Sony) as well as purchase intentions for Sony.

Insert Table 1 about here

12

Overall, the model in Figure 1 explains considerable proportions of variance in brand

attitudes and purchase intentions across brands (see Table 2). Comparing the amounts of

variance explained within the low-involvement (Coke versus Colgate) and high-involvement

(Sony versus Whirlpool) categories respectively, reveals higher explanatory power for the

hedonistic products (Coke, Sony) than for the utilitarian products (Colgate, Whirlpool).

Insert Table 2 about here

In a third step, we estimated a series of alternative models which are theoretically

sensible. The first set of models included direct effects of globalization attitude and GCO on

(1) brand attitude (as suggested by Dimofte et al., 2008), (2) purchase intention, and (3) both.

The second set of models included direct effects of (1) consumer ethnocentrism and (2)

consumer cosmopolitanism on brand evaluation, brand attitude and purchase intention

(consumer ethnocentrism is usually found to influence perceptions of foreign vs. domestic

products, see Shimp and Sharma, 1987). None of these models showed significant direct

effects or better model fit than the proposed model in Figure 1. Additionally, alternative

models specifying CET as moderator variable (from GCO on brand evaluation) or mediator

variables (from GCO on brand attitude, see Alden et al., 2006) should be estimated. Due to

time restrictions, this could not be done for this conference paper but will be presented in the

conference presentation.

Discussion

We find that consumer cosmopolitanism and consumer innovativeness are key drives

of individuals’ attitude towards economic globalization. This general attitude towards

13

economic globalization in turn influences consumers’ global consumption orientation. In this

context, consumers who are open towards free exchange of goods, capital and labor orient

their consumption choices in favor of global offerings. At the other end, consumers with

unfavorable attitudes towards these developments orient their product choices towards local

offerings. Besides from globalization attitudes, GCO is negatively driven by consumer

innovativeness and education. Importantly, our findings on consumer innovativeness diverge

from Steenkamp and de Jong’s (forthcoming) finding that innovative consumers fulfill their

need for modernity and progress by consuming global products. Our theoretical reasoning

takes a different road, as we expected the negative impact based on diversity restrictions due

to global homogenization as a result of globalizing brands. Given those diverging results,

more empirical and conceptual work on this relationship is needed.

Consumer ethnocentrism failed to explain globalization attitudes and GCO as a direct

antecedent variable.. Since consumer ethnocentrism is of vital importance in forming attitudes

towards foreign and local products and services, it might impact brand-specific attitudes on

global offerings (in particular, if equated with foreignness as in the presented study) rather

than globalization attitude or GCO. We will address this by estimating alternative models

specifying CET as moderator variable (from GCO on brand evaluation) or mediator variables

(from GCO on brand attitude, see Alden et al., 2006) for the present sample.

The general construct of globalization attitude was conceptually and empirically

delineated from the consumption-domain specific construct of GCO. Furthermore, the

constructs show distinct antecedents (as discussed above) as well as impacts on global brands.

Consistently, both constructs do not show to directly influence global brand attitudes and

intention to buy. Instead, globalization attitude showed to positively impact global brand

evaluations, which in turn impact attitudes and purchase intentions. This finding is in support

of the signaling effect of globalness on perceived product quality (Erdem & Swait, 1998).

14

GCO, on the other hand, showed only in one (Coke) of four brands significant and positive

impact on brand evaluation, for the remaining brands GCO failed to explain brand evaluation.

This lack of causal relationship might be partly caused by the operationalization of GCO

using Alden et al.’s (2006) lifestyle domain.

Comparing results for the four investigated brands, the proposed model yields more

explanatory power for the hedonistic global brands than for the utilitarian global brands. The

underlying purchase processes might be one reason for this pattern. For hedonic products with

limited information search, and especially with the consumption goal of diversity,

globalization attitudes and GCO might be of more importance in attitude building than for

utilitarian products, for which cognitive motifs - that are not included in the current model –

might be stronger drivers. To examine whether this difference in product type is systematic,

research on a larger set of global brands is needed.

Conclusion & Directions for Future Research

The contribution of this study is three-fold. First, a set of potentially relevant drivers of

globalization attitude and GCO is examined revealing the importance of consumer

cosmopolitanism, consumer innovativeness and education, whereas the heavily researched

consumer ethnocentrism construct fails to explain globalization attitudes and GCO. Second,

the constructs of globalization attitude and GCO are delineated. Third, a potential impact of

globalization attitude is shown to be mediated by brand evaluations rather than directly

influencing brand attitude or behavioral intentions. Including both, globalization attitude and

GCO into a model shows that GCO in the majority of cases fails to explain global brand

perceptions.

Regarding future research, a number of potential directions can be identified. First,

using the selected set of antecedents we can explain around 20% of variance in globalization

15

attitude and GCO, respectively. Previous studies additionally revealed materialism, SNI and

Schwartz’ (1992) values of power and universalism as important drives. As it appears, there

are further drivers of globalization attitude and GCO, which have not been revealed yet. A

more holistic profile of consumers positive or negative towards global brands would be

valuable for managerial implementation of segmenting global versus local consumers.

Second, and related to the previous point, theoretical investigation on the attitude of

innovative consumers towards global brands needs more elaboration. Current views as well as

empirical results diverge. Up to now, it is unclear whether innovative consumers search for

global brands due to their modern and sophisticated image, or whether they are in disfavor of

global brands due to their lack of diverse experiences.

Third, future research should extend the presented model to a larger set of hedonic and

utilitarian brands in order to see whether the model is more suited to hedonic brands as

suggested by our results. If so, additional aspects relevant for consumers’ attitudes towards

utilitarian global brands need to be considered.

Finally, Steenkamp and de Jong (forthcoming) introduce the concepts of AGP and

ALP, which build on Alden et al.’s GCO measure and capture “generalized attitude across a

wide range of product categories” (Steenkamp & de Jong, forthcoming, emphasis in the

original). The problem with Alden et al.’s (2006) category-specific conceptualization might

thereby be overcome. Future research should investigate the relation of globalization attitudes

and these new concepts.

16

References

Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J.B., & Batra, R. (2006). Consumer Attitudes toward marketplace

globalization: Structure, Antecendents and Consequences. International Journal of Research

in Marketing, 23(3), 227-239.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Unterstanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Baumgartner, H., & Steenkamp, J. B. (1996). Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior:

Conceptualization and Measurement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(2),

121-137.

Bauer, H.H., Exler, S., & Bronk, L. (2006) Brands – The more global the better? The 2006

Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy (ANZMAC) Conference Proceedings,

Brisbane, Australien.

Beck, U., & Sznaider, N. (2006). Unpacking cosmopolitanism for the social sciences: a

research agenda. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 1-22.

Cleveland, M., Laroche, M., & Papadopoulos, N. (2009). Cosmopolitanism, Consumer

Ethnocentrism, and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes.

Journal of International Marketing, 17(1), 116-146.

17

Diamantopoulos, A., & Reynolds, N. (1998). The effect of pretest method on error detection

rates: Experimental evidence, European Journal of Marketing, 32(5/6), 480-498.

Dimofte, C.V., Johannson, J.K., & Ronkainen, I.A. (2008). Cognitive and Affective Reactions

of U.S. Consumers to Global Brands. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 113-135.

Donthu, N., & Garcia, A. (1999). The Internet Shopper. Journal of Advertising Research,

93(3), 52-58.

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand Equity as a Signaling Phenomenon, Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.

Holt, D.B. (2002). Why do brand cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and

branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70-90.

Holt, D.B., Quelch, J.A., & Taylor, E.L. (2004). How Global Brands Compete. Harvard

Business Review, 82(9), 68-81.

Holten, R., & Phillips, T. (2002). Popular attitudes to globalisation. Policy, Organisation and

Society, 21(2), 5-21.

Kapferer, J.N. (1997). Strategic Brand Management (2nd edition), Dover, NH: Kogan Page.

Keillor, B.D., D’Amico, M. & Horton, V. (2001). Global Consumer Tendencies. Psychology

& Marketing, 18(1), 1-19.

18

Klein, J.G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The Animosity Model of Foreign Product

Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62(1),

89-100.

Levitt, T. (1983). The Globalization of Markets. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), 39-49.

Lohr, S. (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. CA: Duxbury.

Neff, J. (1999). P&G and Unilever’s giant headaches. Advertising Age, 70, 22-28.

Netemeyer, R., Durvasula, S., & Lichtenstein, D.R. (1991). A Cross-National Assessment of

the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 320-

327.

News (2007). Österreicher sehen Globalisierung kritisch.

http://www.news.at/articles/0725/30/176580/oesterreicher-globalisierung-ca-50-begriff

[access: 22.03.2010]

Özsomer, A., & Altaras, S. (2008). Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis

and an Integrated Conceptual Framework. Journal of International Marketing, 16(4), 1-28.

Petrevu, S., & Lord, K.R. (1994). Comparative and non-comparative advertising: attitudinal

effects under cognitive and affective involvement conditions. Journal of Advertising,

23(June), 77-90.

19

Riefler, P., & Diamantopoulos, A. (2009). Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and

Replication of the CYMYC Scale. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 407-419.

Schuiling, I., & Kapferer, J.N. (2004). Executive Insights: Real Differences between Local

and International Brands: Strategic Implications for International Marketers. Journal of

International Marketing, 12(4), 97-112.

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, 25, Mark

Zanna, ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1-65.

Shankarmahesh, M.N. (2004). Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Integrative Review of Its

Antecedents and Consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146-172.

Shimp, T., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of

the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(1), 280-289.

Spears, M. C., Parker, D. F., & McDonald, M. (2004).Globalization attitudes and locus of

control. Journal of Global Business, 15(29), 57–64.

Steenkamp, J.B., & de Jong, M.G. (forthoming). A global investigation into the constellation

of consumer attitudes toward global and local products. Journal of Marketing (in press).

Steenkamp, J.B., Batra R., & Alden, D.L. (2003). How perceived brand globalness creates

brand value. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1), 53-65.

20

Steenkamp, J. B., & Gielsen, K. (2003). Consumer and market drivers oft the trial rate of new

consumer products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 368-384.

Steenkamp, J. B., Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. A. (1999). A cross-national comparison into the

national and cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63(2),

55-69.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Thompson, C.J., Rindfleisch, A., & Arsel, Z. (2006). Emotional Branding and the Strategic

Value of the Doppelgänger Brand Image. Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 50-64.

Thompson, C., & Tambyah, S. K. (1999). Trying to be Cosmopolitan. Journal of Consumer

Research, 26(3), 214-241.

Yip, G.S. (1995). Total Global Strategy: Managing for Worldwide Competitive Advantage.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21

Figure 1: Global Brand Model

22

Table 1: Overall Model Fit

CHI-SQUARE RMSEA NNFI CFICoke 617.75 .043 .944 .953Colgate 648,57 .048 .937 .948Sony 664.85 .048 .939 .949Whirlpool 653.79 .047 .946 .954

23

Table 2: Variance Explained

R2

Brand EvaluationR2

Brand AttitudeR2

Purchase IntentionCoke .36 .79 .78Colgate .16 .59 .50Sony .21 .68 .56Whirlpool .09 .58 .48