The Influence of Culture Upon Consumers' Desired Value Perceptions

Marketing Theory
http://mtq.sagepub.com/
The influence of culture upon consumers' desired value perceptions: A research

agenda
Jeffrey W. Overby, Robert B. Woodruff and Sarah Fisher Gardial
Marketing Theory 2005 5: 139
DOI: 10.1177/1470593105052468
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/5/2/139
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Marketing Theory can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://mtq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://mtq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://mtq.sagepub.com/content/5/2/139.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jun 15, 2005
What is This?
Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 139
Volume 5(2): 139–163

Copyright © 2005 SAGE
www.sagepublications.com
DOI: 10.1177/1470593105052468
articles
The influence of culture upon consumers’

desired value perceptions: A research agenda
Jeffrey W. Overby
Florida State University, USA
Robert B. Woodruff
University of Tennessee, USA
Sarah Fisher Gardial

University of Tennessee, USA
Abstract. Although consumer consumption occurs globally, the value that consumers
perceive from buying and using a product or service likely differs across cultures. We
show that consumer perceptions of product/service value are determined not only by
intrinsic dispositions, but also by internalized cultural values and norms, and exter-
nal contextual factors. This article conceptually examines how and where culture
influences consumer value. Following a review of the literature on consumer value
and culture, we offer an integrative model that conceptualizes culture as a meta-
phorical lens influencing the meaning and relative importance of the content and
structure of a consumer’s means-end value hierarchy. We discuss the implications for
a future research program. Key Words
•
means-end value
context
•
culture international
• • •
Introduction
Wherever one turns today, globalization issues confront organizations. Attractive

internationalization opportunities exist not only for large multinational organiza-
tions, but also for small and medium-sized firms (Knight, 2000). Some have
argued that this globalization of business signals the globalization of cultures (e.g.
Levitt, 1983). However, the fact that consumers1 from different cultures may
139

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 140
marketing theory 5(2)

articles
purchase similar products and services does not necessarily imply that culture’s
influence on product/service purchase and use are similar. People may utilize
the same product and service features for very different reasons (Aaker and
Maheswaran, 1997; Bagozzi and Dholakia, 1999; Sheth et al., 2000). Conse-
quently, cultural diversity remains a highly influential factor in international
business.
Perhaps the most significant result of the globalization of markets and the
increase in global competition is the emergence of more empowered consumers
who actively engage in the exchange process (Sheth et al., 2000). Those organiza-
tions which are best able to respond to globally different consumer needs and
desires likely will emerge as the competitive ‘winners’. In fact, the international
marketing literature has called for ‘glocalization’ strategies in which marketers plan
globally while adapting marketing implementation to local conditions (Kefalas,
1998; Tai and Wong, 1998). Importantly, local adaptation requires that managers
understand how consumers attach value to products and services in local markets.
The literature on customer and market orientation argues for the importance
of putting ‘the customer’s interest first’ and ‘the creation of superior value for
buyers’ (Deshpandé et al., 1993: 26–7). Consumer value delivery and communi-
cation strategies represent a way to deal with widespread competition and more
knowledgeable, empowered consumers (Woodruff and Gardial, 1996). In fact,
consumer value perceptions have been shown to positively influence product/
service evaluations, behavioral intentions, and repeat purchase, all of which ulti-
mately affect organizational success (Cronin et al., 2000; Patterson et al., 1997).
However, determining what consumers actually value can be a challenge for any
company (Wilson, 2003), and this process becomes even more complex when one
considers the challenges of doing so in multiple, international markets.
Means-end theory provides a useful framework to better understand how con-
sumers perceive value (Gutman, 1982; Woodruff, 1997; Woodruff and Gardial,
1996). This theory portrays consumers as selectively attending to and learning
which product/service attributes foster the experience of desired consequences (or
minimize/avoid undesired consequences), which in turn help achieve desired end
states. Several authors conceptualize consumer value as a consumer’s evaluation
of salient attributes and consequences and the perceived linkages that enable these
attributes and consequences to fulfill desired end states in specific use situations
(e.g. Woodruff 1997; Zeithaml, 1988).
Although applications of means-end theory have become more commonplace
in the literature, few studies have specifically examined cultural influences. These
studies reveal intriguing cultural differences in cognitive meaning structures (e.g.
Botschen and Hemetsberger, 1998; ter Hofstede et al., 1999; Valette-Florence,
1998). Yet, none has specifically proposed how culture may influence consumers’
means-end knowledge. We want to extend existing research by exploring how
culture influences means-end consumer value in an international business con-
text. The perceptual nature of value makes it especially vulnerable to cultural
differences. Yet, as marketing academics have begun to explore the concept of
consumer value, culture essentially continues to be largely overlooked. Even
140

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 141
The influence of culture

Jeffrey W. Overby et al.
though the phenomenon of consumer value may be universal, the way it is per-
ceived and structured as well as its influence upon behavior may not be uniform
across cultures. Thus, the customer value literature may be more useful to cross-
cultural marketing by providing a greater understanding of the effects of culture
on customer value perceptions.
In this article, we propose an integrative theoretical framework addressing
how culture influences the means-end content and structure of consumers’ value
perceptions. We believe that culture acts like a metaphorical lens to shape the
meaning and relative importance of perceived means-end value hierarchy dimen-
sions and linkages. Our proposed framework is grounded in means-end theory
from marketing, as well as the culture literatures in marketing, management,
anthropology, cross-cultural psychology, and social psychology. We use this
framework to offer propositions that explain how culture weaves its effect on
customer value perceptions. We conclude by discussing implications of our
framework for a program of research.
Consumer value perception and means-end theory
After reviewing many definitions of customer value in the literature, Woodruff

(1997) identified several areas of agreement. Specifically, consumer value is:
1 perceived by consumers;
2 attached to a product/service in the context of use situations; and
3 a worth trade off between what a consumer receives from a seller and what s/he
gives up.
A growing body of evidence supports means-end theory as a way of understand-
ing consumer value (Flint et al., 2002; Gardial et al., 1994; Zeithaml, 1988). This
theory focuses on cognitive meanings that consumers associate with the prod-
ucts/services they purchase and consume (e.g. Pieters et al., 1995; ter Hofstede et
al., 1999; Valette-Florence, 1998). We briefly review the means-end theory litera-
ture to introduce concepts on which our model is based.
Means-end content and structure

Figure 1 presents a model which visually interprets means-end theory (Gutman,
1982; Woodruff, 1997). Attributes, consequences, and desired end-states com-
prise a consumer’s memory schema, which we label the content of consumer
value. Attributes (A) are characteristics or features of products and services.
Previous research (Olson and Reynolds, 1983) suggests that there are two cate-
gories of attributes: (1) concrete attributes, which are physical product or service
characteristics that a consumer can directly perceive, such as color, size, and price
of a product, and (2) abstract attributes, such as quality, reliability, and fit, which
a consumer cannot directly observe through the senses.
Consequences (C) are the benefit and sacrifice use experiences resulting from
141

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 142

articles
Desired end-states
Consumption consequences
Personal
Social
Functional
Desired attributes
Concrete Abstract
Figure 1
Means-end hierarchy
consumption of a product or service in a use situational context. Past research

suggests that consequences fall into three categories (Holbrook, 1994; Lai, 1995;
Sheth et al., 1991). Functional consequences describe a consumer’s use experiences
with a product or service related to its utilitarian purposes (Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975; Myers and Shocker, 1981; Sheth et al., 1991). Personal consequences are those
that reinforce a consumer’s self-image through symbolic meaning (Hirschman
and LaBarbera, 1990; McCracken, 1990). Social consequences portray the con-
sumer’s image to others congruent with the norms of important others
(Holbrook, 1994). Interestingly, only a few studies have examined both attributes
and consequences simultaneously, and these studies suggest that consumer choice
is more likely influenced by consequence-level considerations than attributes
(Gardial et al., 1994; Geistfeld et al., 1977; Sheth et al., 1991).
Desired end-states (DES) comprise the most abstract and intangible means-end
components. They are cognitive representations of consumers’ needs and goals.
Some authors equate end-states with cultural values (e.g. Gutman, 1982; Pitts et
142

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 143

al., 1991), where a cultural value becomes a consumer’s goal for consumption.
For instance, a woman with children may drive a car perceived as safe in order to
reinforce her desire to be a good mother (a desired end-state as a cultural value).
Means-end theory assumes that consumers cognitively link specific A, C, DES
content of product-related knowledge and memory into means-end chains. We
use the term ‘consumer value structure’ to refer to these chains of associations
in a consumer’s memory. For example, when choosing a wine in a restaurant, a
consumer may desire a French (concrete attribute) wine to impress other people
at the table (social consequence), which helps the consumer to fulfill a need for
status (end-state). In this example, the means-end structure would be:
French→Impress Others→Status.
The two-directional arrows in Figure 1 convey additional meaning about these
chains or linkages (Woodruff and Gardial, 1996). Looking ‘downward’ in a
means-end chain, desired end-states help a consumer determine which con-
sequences are important in a use situation. In turn, important consequences
determine which attributes become salient and evaluated. Looking ‘upward’ in a
means-end chain, salient attributes may cause a consumer to make causal attri-
butions as to the specific consequences that are likely to be experienced when
using a product or service in a consumption situation. In turn, consumers learn
to attribute these consequences to desired end-states being satisfied.
Means-end theory assumes that consumers learn A, C, DES and their linkages
through personal experience, socialization, and cultural transmission (Reynolds
and Gutman, 1988). For example, over multiple purchases, a consumer may learn
to link a concrete attribute, such as price, to a more abstract attribute, such as
quality (i.e. an A to A linkage). In turn, quality becomes important to a consumer
when s/he sees that it communicates to others that s/he has good taste (an A to C
linkage), which helps the feeling of being admired by others (a C to DES linkage).
Means-end learning occurs within a consumer’s consumption context, which
comprises the circumstances in which a consumer purchases and/or consumes a
product or service. This concept is similar to the consumption situation discussed
by Lai (1991), the usage occasion of Desai and Hoyer (2000), and the situation
research of Belk (1975). Different consumption contexts influence how con-
sumers perceive the linkages between specific attributes and consequences, even
though objective product or service performance remains constant across con-
texts (Lai, 1991; Roth and Moorman, 1988). For example, a consumer may rent a
large hotel room during the week (consumption context) for the purpose of
spreading out his/her work prior to a presentation (Room size→Get work done),
but then desire the same large room on a weekend (consumption context) for
the purpose of taking his/her family on a vacation (Room size→Have fun with
family). Importantly, often there are numerous consumption contexts for a single
product. For example, the context for consumption of a bottle of mineral water
differs depending on whether one is consuming it during or after physical exer-
cise, sipping it slowly at a sidewalk café, or using it to cook.
143

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 144

articles
Table 1
Review of cross-cultural means-end studies
Article Empirical or National

conceptual or Hypothesis culture(s)
methodological testing methodology Examined
Dibley and Empirical No Laddering Spain and United

Baker (2001) Kingdom
ter Hofstede Methodological No APT – 11 European
et al. (1999) Association countries
Pattern
Technique
Botschen and Empirical; No Paper-and-Pencil Austria, Italy,
Hemetsberger Methodological Laddering Germany
(1998) and HVM
Valette-Florence Empirical; No Laddering and France, Italy,
(1998) Methodological Nonlinear Germany,
Generalized Switzerland
Canonical Analysis
Culture and means-end theory

Existing means-end theory provides limited ability to explain variation in con-
sumer perceptions of products cross-culturally. For example, it does not account
for the influence of culture on means-end perceptions other than on DES.
Similarly, the consumer value literature barely touches on the influence of culture
upon the process by which consumers assess value of product/services for specific
consumption contexts. Yet, Johnson (1998) argues that when examining con-
sumer value, the place to start is with historical and cultural factors. Roth concurs
when he states, ‘the many aspects of a culture affect differently the needs con-
sumers satisfy through the acquisition and use of goods and services’ (1995:
164–5).
Early models in the consumer behavior literature attempted to directly link
culture with product choice. However, empirical research has not been able to
fully support this view, and some researchers even assert that values, by them-
selves, are poor predictors of behavior (Lai, 1995; Sojka and Tansuhaj, 1995).
Later research attempted to fit culture into a means-end framework, where
culture was conceived as cultural values. Proponents argued that cultural values
exert their influence on means-end chains through a direct effect on desired end-
states. Gutman (1982) went a step further when he equated desired end-states
with cultural values. By taking this position, he may have over-simplified the
influence of culture upon customer value, as we later show.
Table 1 compares means-end studies in the marketing literature that have
144

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 145

attempted to incorporate culture. It indicates very limited research on the influ-

ence of culture upon means-end theory. Although the few cross-cultural studies
that exist have presented intriguing findings, none has stated any theory-driven
hypotheses as to how culture influences the means-end value hierarchy. Not
surprisingly, Valette-Florence (1998) calls for greater use of hypotheses in means-
end studies to validate cultural differences. In the next two sections, we respond
to this call by introducing culture concepts and discussing the logic for specific
propositions that describe how culture influences consumer value perceptions.
Conceptualizing culture
Although the literature offers many definitions of culture, most fall into two
major categories: (1) objective (or explicit) culture and (2) subjective (or implicit)
culture. According to Triandis (1994), objective culture represents the tangible
aspects of a society, such as tools, roads, and overt behaviors. Similarly, Berry et
al. define explicit culture as ‘the set of observable acts and products regularly
found within a group’ (1992: 168). Conversely, subjective culture represents
mental processes such as beliefs, values, and norms shared by a group of people
(Berry et al., 1992; Bock, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Holland and Quinn, 1987;
Schwartz, 1997; Triandis, 1972). For our article, we adopt this latter view, as
articulated by Triandis (1972: 4, 13): culture is a group’s ‘characteristic way of
perceiving the man-made part of its environment’. We chose subjective culture
for two major reasons. First, subjective culture is a cognitive conceptualization
coinciding with the cognitive nature of means-end hierarchies. Second, a sub-
jective conceptualization of culture, using values and norms at the nation-state
level, has been the most commonly employed approach for studying culture in
the marketing literature (e.g. Birgelen et al., 2002; Clark, 1990; Nakata and
Sivakumar, 1996). This research has shown that national culture significantly
influences consumer innovation (Steenkamp et al., 1999), consumer decision
making (Briley et al., 2000), intentions (Bagozzi et al., 2000), persuasion (Aaker,
2000), product attribute importance (Tse et al., 1988), and even the relationship
between interviewer ethnicity and survey response quality (Webster, 1996).
Culture as values and norms

Cultural values are sometimes equated to needs, beliefs, motives, conceptions of
what is desirable, and standards according to which evaluations are made (Kahle
and Timmer, 1983; Maslow, 1959; Rokeach, 1973). However, we found several
commonalities of subjective culture definitions that help to clear the confusion
from so many terms. Cultural values (a) are shared beliefs, (b) are about desirable
end states or behaviors, (c) transcend specific situations, (d) guide selection or
evaluation of behavior and events, and (e) are ordered by relative importance
(Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987). Importantly, consumer value and cultural values are
very different belief concepts. Consumer value refers to an individual’s evaluative
145

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 146

articles
beliefs attached to a specific product, service, or seller within a use context. In con-
trast, cultural values are beliefs about what behaviors and goals specific groups
or societies consider to be important. These latter beliefs do not consider as
referents particular products, services, sellers, or use contexts. In essence, while
cultural values and consumer value are kinds of beliefs, they have entirely differ-
ent referents. Interestingly, because of this difference, cultural values have great
potential to influence consumer value.
In addition to holding cultural values, societies utilize cultural norms to regu-
late behavior among their members. These norms are rules and behaviors that
are approved by one’s group or society (cf. Fisher and Ackerman, 1998). Unlike
cultural values, cultural norms are context specific, because they specify what
group members should or ought to do within a specific situation or role (Berry,
1993; Cialdini et al., 1991; Fisher and Ackerman, 1998). Specific contexts may
involve a variety of situations, including consumption situations. A number of
business-to-business studies have empirically demonstrated the influence of
norms upon behavior (Gundlach et al., 1995; Heide and John, 1992). Un-
fortunately, with the exception of a relatively few articles (e.g. Bagozzi et al., 2000;
Fisher and Ackerman, 1998; Paswan et al., 2002; Pavia and Mason, 2001;
Thogersen, 2002), the marketing literature has been slow to examine the influence
of social norms on consumers’ value perceptions. In the next section, we integrate
the concepts of consumer value and culture into a proposed model.
Proposed cultural-based model of consumer value
The model in Figure 2 explains how subjective culture influences consumer value
beliefs. The heart of the model is a simple perception process. Consumers receive
product/service information, which they either screen out or integrate into
means-end memory related to that product/service. The means-end memory, in
turn, is embedded in a consumption context to show that consumer value hier-
archies are specific to the characteristics of the situation in which the product/
service is used (or will be used). Consistent with Briley and Wyer (2002), we
propose that culture influences this perception process by shaping the meaning
and relative importance of means-end content and structure. This shaping ulti-
mately influences a consumer’s attachment of value to a product/service. Because
product/service related beliefs are only relevant for specific consumption contexts,
the salient consumption context serves as a moderator of the relationship between
culture and desired consequences and attributes.
For this article, we decided to focus on culture’s effect on a consumer’s means-
end hierarchy, and not on consumer choice behavior. We recognize that to
explain consumer choice would go well beyond cultural variations in means-end
hierarchies. There is considerable support for our model in the marketing and
culture literatures. Various researchers have demonstrated that cultural values
and norms (Markus and Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989) and the consumption
context (Belk, 1975; Darpy, 2002; Nicholls et al., 1996; Osterhus, 1997; Patterson,
146

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 147

Product/service information
Culture lens
Consumption context
Means-end hierarchy
Attributes Consequences Desired end-states
Figure 2
Proposed conceptual model
2000) shape individual perceptions, dispositions, and behaviors. In the next sec-
tions, we elaborate on each part of the model.
Culture as a perceptual lens

Culture represents a metaphorical lens through which people perceive the world
(Bock, 1994; Cui and Choudhury, 1998; McCracken, 1986, 1990; Veroff and
Goldberger, 1995). Because culture is prone to exhibit its greatest influence upon
perception, information processing strategies, cognitive structures, and the
intensity of wants and needs, the metaphor is particularly applicable to the study
of means-end hierarchies (Bock, 1994; Hofstede, 1980; Kim et al., 2000). Culture
enables consumers to:
1 perceive very selectively in accordance with the structure of cognitive systems;
2 perceive in a way that does not disturb their established cognitive system; and
3 perceive in a way that is ‘locked in’ much more than consciously realized
(Fisher, 1988).
Applying means-end theory, we believe that culture influences two specific
properties of consumer value within a consumption context: (1) meaning; and
(2) relative importance of means-end content and structure (e.g. Cui and
Choudhury, 1998; Kim et al., 2000). Meaning refers to what a product/service
147

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 148

articles
attribute, consequence, or desired end-state symbolizes to a consumer. Because

consumers interact with others in a culture, the shared meaning of A, C, and DES
is likely to influence consumers’ personal meanings. Relative importance is the
worth or significance of an attribute, consequence, or desired end-state to a
consumer when compared to other attributes, consequences, or end-states in a
common consumption context. Interestingly, Keller (1993) suggests characteris-
tics similar to meaning and importance when he argues that brand benefit
associations are unique, favorable, and strong. Meaning and relative importance
are not necessarily independent consumer value properties; rather, they are likely
to interact. For example, because a high price may signify quality and prestige, it
is more likely to become relatively more important when one is trying to achieve
status.
The unit of analysis in our model is an individual consumer. However, we
predict that individual differences in consumer value are, in part, a function of
population-level factors such as national culture (Berry et al., 1992). As McCort
and Malhotra argue, ‘while a cognitive orientation can not provide an overarching
theory of cross-cultural behavior, it does offer a means of exploring cultural influ-
ences on behavior by linking cultural antecedents with individual psychological
functioning’ (1993: 96). Importantly, we focus on cultural influence, rather than
on culture per se, by considering the effect of culture upon individual means-end
hierarchy perceptions. Such a cognitive means-end perspective is appropriate
for examining the relationship between culture and consumer value because
‘cognitive categories and their associations can be regarded as the result of life-
long learning. We would therefore expect that differences in consumer culture are
mirrored in people’s system of cognitive categories and their associations’
(Grunert and Beckmann, 1999: 371).
Culture and consumer value meaning

Part of the justification for our model comes from anthropology research.
Holland and Quinn believe that the meaning identified in cognitive models holds
‘possible clues to the underlying cultural knowledge that enters into linguistic and
other behavior’ (1987: 16). They and other cognitive anthropologists employ
reconstructed schemas (acquired through native speakers’ intuitions and analysis
of natural discourse) to access cultural meaning. Similarly, cross-cultural psy-
chologists assert that socialization and enculturation of cultural values and norms
are the primary precursors to differences in sensory sensitivity and discrimina-
tion, color coding and categorization, patterns and pictures, and aesthetics (Berry
et al., 1992). Essentially, enculturation is at least partially responsible for the
meaning that societal members attach to objects, persons, and abstract ideas.
Within the consumer behavior realm, Allen and Ng (1999) found that culture
directly influences product choice when consumers attend to a product’s symbolic
meaning and make an affective judgment. Further, culture indirectly influences
product choice via attribute importance when consumers attend to a product’s
functional meaning. In a cross-cultural setting, culture has been shown to directly
148

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 149

affect the meaning of cues or attributes (Jacobs et al., 1991; Maheswaran, 1994).
Jacobs et al. (1991) found significant differences in color perceptions between
consumers in China, South Korea, Japan, and the USA. For example, grey is
associated with being inexpensive in China and Japan, but expensive, high quality
and dependable in the USA. Similarly, Wetzels et al. (1995) found that nationality
influenced service quality dimensions. Based on this evidence, we predict that
culture influences the meaning that consumers form about the value of a product
or service. More specifically, we believe that culture influences the means-end
hierarchy in multiple ways, sometimes influencing the meaning attached to con-
sequences and other times bypassing consequences and directly influencing the
meaning attached to attributes. Even at the end-state level, we expect differences.
Though domains of culture have been shown to exist universally throughout the
world, their dominance will differ according to specific cultures (Hofstede, 1980;
Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Schwartz, 1992; Triandis, 1994). These differ-
ences will likely be reflected in the desired end-states and ultimately the entire
means-end hierarchy.
Finally, even when similar attributes, consequences, and end-states emerge
across cultures, the perceived meaning of linkages between these concepts may be
very different (Hise et al., 2003; Januszewska et al., 2000; Madden et al., 2000). In
a study comparing Polish and Belgian consumers, Januszewska et al. (2000) found
significant disagreements between these groups in their linkages between the
attributes of chocolate products (i.e. package, price) and the perception of health
consequences. They also found discrepancies between the two samples in antici-
pation of affective consequences from chocolate (e.g. addiction) and preferences
for different varieties (attributes) of chocolate. Similarly, Botschen and Hemets-
berger (1998) found the linkage ‘warmth→comfortable clothing→satisfaction→
harmony with yourself’ to be extremely important among German consumers of
a high quality branded clothing manufacturer. However, Austrian consumers
placed much less importance on this linkage.
Based on this discussion, we believe that culture has much greater potential to
influence entire means-end hierarchies than just at the end-state level. We predict
that culture directly influences all properties of these value hierarchies:
P1a: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the meaning of means-end value
hierarchy dimensions at all levels.
P1b: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the linkages in means-end value
hierarchies at all levels.
Culture and consumer value importance

A growing body of evidence indicates that culture influences the relative impor-
tance of attributes in consumer means-end hierarchies (e.g. Matsumoto, 1996;
Tse et al., 1988). For instance, Johnson (1998) found that national culture affects
the importance of specific product attributes. In a comparison of Japanese and
American societies, traditional Japanese, when considering headache remedies,
149

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 150

articles
typically place emphasis upon homogeneity, purity, and stability. These means-
end preferences help to explain why Japanese consumers prefer analgesic tablets
in a bubble pack instead of a bottle. A bubble pack enables them to inspect each
tablet for uniformity and purity. Conversely, US consumers traditionally value a
remedy that is tailored to their particular type of ache or pain, making a bubble
pack much less important. Similarly, Du Preez et al. (1994) found significant
differences in perceptions of importance attached to various product attributes
(e.g. country of origin and ‘green’ features) among consumers from Korea, Spain,
and France. Hoyer and Deshpandé (1982) found that Hispanic Americans place
more importance upon brand image than non-Hispanic Americans.
More limited evidence suggests that culture influences the relative importance
of consequences as well (Botschen and Hemetsberger, 1998; ter Hofstede et al.,
1998, 1999; Valette-Florence, 1998). For example, in a study of branded clothing
in Europe, Botschen and Hemetsberger (1998) found that Austrians place more
importance on the consumption consequence of ‘national pride’ while Germans
place more importance on the consumption consequence ‘coordinates well’.
Based on this literature, we predict that culture will influence the relative
importance of means-end dimensions at all levels. Further, though we could find
no supporting research one way or the other, we believe that culture will influence
the relative importance of linked A, C, and DES chains. Because consumers
perceptually link A, C, and DES, their tendency to impute relative importance to
individual dimensions signals a similar tendency applied to these chains:
P2a: Within a consumption context, culture influences the relative importance of means-end
value hierarchy dimensions
P2b: Within a consumption context, culture influences the relative importance of linked A, C,
DES in means-end hierarchies.
Culture, context, and means-end hierarchies

Literature suggests that culture may influence a means-end hierarchy both intrin-
sically and extrinsically. Intrinsically, cultural values affect consumers’ desired
end-states by becoming embedded in the end-state content (McCort and
Malhotra, 1993). As such, culture influences motivational tendencies for the
group and for individual group members. Desired end-states influence desired
consumption consequences, which, then, affect preference for product or service
attributes. In this way, culture influences consumer value beliefs from the top of
the hierarchy down to attributes.
As discussed earlier, most cross-cultural means-end research adopts this per-
spective. Gutman (1982) asserts that desired end-states are a product of cultural
values. Similarly, ter Hofstede et al. (1999) explain that consequences take on
importance to a consumer because of their perceived ability to fulfill values.
Importantly, Valette-Florence (1998) found end-state differences between con-
sumers from four European countries. In a means-end study of perfume, Italian
consumers clustered around romantic and personal end-states, French consumers
150

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 151

clustered around hedonism, and German and Swiss consumers clustered around
self-satisfaction and prestige.
Consistent with these findings, we predict that cultural values become embed-
ded in the end-state level of the means-end value hierarchy. This embedding is
revealed in the meaning of desired end-states expressed by consumers when
thinking about a particular consumption context. Further, cultural embedding
will influence which desired end-states are more or less important to the con-
sumer for that consumption context:
P3a: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the meaning of desired end-
states.
P3b: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the relative importance of
desired end-states.
Extrinsically, culture may influence the means-end hierarchy by externally sanc-
tioning specific behaviors. Consequently, certain consumption consequences,
which occur because of product/service use behavior, and associated product
attributes may be desired in their own right because of this sanctioning. In this
way, culture is normative, influencing the lower levels of the hierarchy simultane-
ously.
In view of extrinsic influence, it may not be so surprising that previous culture
research in marketing often has not reported strong correlation between cultural
values and product preferences (Lai, 1995; Sojka and Tansuhaj, 1995). Cultural
values may not always directly affect behavior through end-states in the means-
end structure (Leung, 1987). Instead, culture may make certain consequences or
attributes salient and ultimately more important than others. For example, Leung
(1987) found that Chinese and Americans both valued reaching a harmonious
outcome, but the national samples differed greatly in the procedures used to bring
about a harmonious choice outcome. Similarly, though Botschen and Hemets-
berger (1998) found desired end-states to be identical among consumers from
three European countries in a means-end study, they found that desired conse-
quences and attributes exhibited distinct national differences. Austrian consumers
most centrally valued quality, national pride, and the fact that the product
was Austrian made, whereas Italian consumers most centrally valued comfort,
warmth, and appearance. Hence, culture appears to be directly influencing lower
hierarchy levels such as attributes and consequences rather than always filtering
down through end-states:
P4a: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the meaning of desired conse-
quences and attributes.
P4b: Within a consumption context, culture directly influences the relative importance of
desired consequences and attributes.
Several researchers point out that culture interacts with context to invoke social
norms (Bourdieu, 1977; Cialdini et al., 1991; Taylor, 1981; Triandis, 1995).
Norms manifest as heuristic strategies and short cuts to produce decisions and
judgments more efficiently and accurately. Kroonenberg and Kashima (1997)
151

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 152

articles
argue for more context-based research of culturally driven behavior, as do Briley

et al. (2000), Kitayama and Markus (1995), and Burton (2002). Within the
consumer behavior realm, Bagozzi et al. (2000) found that subjective norms
influenced consumer decision-making only in certain situations. For fast food
restaurant consumption, they found that subjective norms were only influential
upon consumer decision-making for the context of eating with friends; con-
versely, consumers in both western and eastern cultures relied entirely upon
personal attitudes when dining alone. Taylor (1981) suggests that social situations
are especially important because they invoke salient norms, and DiMaggio (1997)
asserts that because cultures can still leave opportunity for choice and variation,
one must consider how culture-based perceptions and schemas are situationally
cued.
Finally, Djursaa and Kragh (1998) theorize that consumption context can
significantly determine the influence of culture upon consumer behavior. They
categorize consumption context on a sliding scale with two polar extremes:
(1) central (a culturally closed situation in which consumption is usually consis-
tent with prevailing cultural values) and (2) peripheral (a culturally open situation
in which consumption is often pursued to fulfill values that are not necessarily
consistent with prevailing cultural values). To test their theory, they conducted 60
interviews and group discussions examining food consumption in three Arab
cities (Dubai, Jedda and Riyadh), and they found that the central-peripheral
dichotomy partly explained the influence of culture upon consumer behavior.
Consequently, we propose that culture, by acting with the consumption context,
will differentially influence means-end value hierarchy dimensions:
P5a: The meaning of specific means-end value dimensions will reflect established culture in
central consumption contexts more than in peripheral consumption contexts.
P5b: The relative importance of specific means-end value dimensions will reflect established
culture in central consumption contexts more than in peripheral consumption contexts.
A final issue relates to whether culture is more influential upon some specific
levels of the means-end hierarchy than others. For example, there is some
disagreement in the literature regarding the influence of culture upon desired
attributes. Erdem et al. (1999) found a significant influence of values upon impor-
tance judgments for store attributes. However, in a multicultural study examining
marketing universals, Dawar (1994) found few managerially relevant cultural
differences in consumers’ use of product attributes (e.g. brand name, price,
physical appearance, and retailer reputation) as signals of product quality.
Within a means-end framework, cultural influences may affect attribute mean-
ings; however, consequences and end-state-level perceptions are more likely to
reveal deep cultural meanings (Lai, 1995). A primary reason is that attribute-level
considerations tend to be more concrete and product-focused. Conversely,
the consequence and end-state levels of the means-end hierarchy involve a
consumer’s experiences with the product and his/her interpretations of that
experience, which are more likely to be influenced by culture. Thus, we predict
152

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 153

that higher levels of the means-end value hierarchy are more sensitive to cultural
differences than are attributes:
P6: Desired end states are more likely to be sensitive to and reflective of cultural differences
than are attributes.
Consumer value and culture research agenda
In this article we present a framework for understanding how culture influences

customer value. Our model drew from means-end theory and culture literature to
explain how culture becomes infused into consumer value beliefs at all levels. Our
discussion in support of several propositions indicates important directions for
future research. In the next section, we propose a four-phase research agenda to
advance our knowledge of culture’s influence on consumer value.
Phase I: cross-cultural research on consumer value

A logical starting place for future research is to test the propositions derived from
the model shown in Figure 2. Such tests should indicate whether the culture-as-a-
lens metaphor helps us to understand culture’s influence on content and structure
of consumer value beliefs. Cross-cultural research may be best for these tests
because a researcher can study culture in the field while holding other parts of
the model constant. For example, one could hold consumption context and
product/service constant by employing the same product and use situation rele-
vant for multiple cultures.
To compare across cultures, we suggest operationalizing culture as patterns of
values and norms, referred to earlier as cultural domains. Empirically derived
domains (Hall, 1977; Hofstede, 1980; Schwartz, 1992) represent categories of
culture-level values and norms that are closely correlated and share a common
societal theme. Hofstede (1980) was one of the first to empirically test the
existence of such cultural domains, originally extracting four dimensions:
1 power distance;
2 uncertainty avoidance;
3 individualism; and
4 masculinity.
This research has been widely applied in marketing studies to examine the influ-
ence of culture domains upon managerial and consumer behavior (e.g. Kale,
1995; Money et al., 1998; Roth, 1995).
When comparing across cultures, the earlier propositions should be reformu-
lated into hypotheses that contrast different domains. For example, because of the
characteristics of individualism/collectivism established in the literature (e.g.
Hofstede, 1980; Triandis et al., 1988), one might expect consumers from collec-
tive cultures to more positively value social consumption consequences than
individuals from individualist cultures. In contrast, consumers from individualist
153

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 154

articles
cultures will be likely to value personal consumption consequences more than

consumers from collective cultures. Consistent with Briley and Wyer (2002) and
Briley et al. (2000), one also might expect consumers from individualist cultures
to focus on positive attributes and consequences of product/service use more than
consumers in collective cultures. On the other hand, consumers in collective
cultures are more likely to focus on negative attributes and consequences of choice
more than consumers in individualist cultures.
As another illustration, given the characteristics of high context/low context
communication (e.g. Hall, 1977, 1980; Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars,
1993), one might expect consumers from low context cultures to place more
importance on concrete attributes and functional consequences than consumers
from high context cultures. In addition, one might expect social consequences to
be more important to consumers from low context cultures than to consumers
from high context cultures.
Phase II: culture’s multiple paths of influence on consumer value

Once culture as a lens is better understood, research should begin to look more
closely at the multiple paths by which culture affects consumer value perceptions.
Our model suggests that culture may weave its influence throughout all levels of
the means-end hierarchy (attributes, consequences, and desired end-states),
directly and indirectly influencing both content and structure of consumer value.
Previous models have proposed a ‘top-down’ orientation, where cultural values
influence the importance and meaning of lower-level consequences, attributes,
and the linkages in between. However, our model also suggests that culture may
directly influence the structure and content of lower-level attributes and con-
sequences through the determination of culturally relevant ‘norms’. These distinct
paths raise the following research questions:
• Does culture’s influence on consumers’ desired end-states flow down to the
preferences consumers have for consequences and attributes (top-down path of
value influence)?
• Does culture directly influence consequence and attribute perceptions in a
consumer’s means-end hierarchy (direct path of value influence)?
• What methodologies are appropriate for teasing out the relative effect of
top-down versus direct paths of influence on consumer means-end value
perceptions?
• Under what circumstances will each of these paths dominate value perceptions?
• What are the factors that moderate the path by which culture influences the
means-end hierarchy? For instance, ‘top-down’ influence may be more evident
in ‘central consumption contexts’, while direct influence may be more evident
in ‘peripheral consumption contexts’. Likewise, publicly consumed products/
services may be more often characterized by ‘direct’ cultural influence than
those privately consumed.
Our model suggests that understanding how culture influences consumer value
154

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 155

will require examining the influence on meaning and relative importance of

both consumer value content and structure. It is quite possible that two identical
looking means-end hierarchies could result in different overall value perceptions,
given the different meanings and importance that will be attached to various
content and linkages. This raises two additional research questions:
• Are meaning and relative importance changes the outcomes of perceptual
processes? Or, are they a part of the perceptual process itself?
• Do cultural values and norms have differential effect on means-end content and
structure?
Measurement issues come into play for meaning and relative importance, as
well. How is it best to measure these subtle processing differences? Could certain
measurement techniques themselves bias perceptions (e.g. aided versus unaided
techniques)? To guard against such biases, should multiple measures be used? The
literature offers some guidance for answering these questions. Importance can
be measured subjectively using scales, as well as quantified by measuring the influ-
ence of a perceived product characteristic on outcome measures such as choice. A
number of approaches have been utilized to gain access to consumers’ cognitive
structures, including laddering (Reynolds and Gutman, 1988), metaphor elicita-
tion (Zaltman and Coulter, 1995), association pattern technique (ter Hofstede et
al., 1998), and ethnography and discourse analysis (Holland and Quinn, 1987).
However, a single approach may not be adequate for examining meaning and
relative importance. The integration of diverse approaches would yield knowledge
far superior to that which currently exists.
Phase III: consumption context research within cultures

Our model proposes a moderating role for consumption context. Although con-
sumption context is an important component of means-end models, its role has
not been fully explored in consumer value research. Consequently, the purpose
of this third phase is to bring the extant literature on context to bear on how con-
sumption context influences the meaning and relative importance of consumer
value content and structure. This phase requires addressing how to operationalize
consumption context. Belk’s (1975) five situational factors may provide a starting
place for this challenge. However, research is needed to develop typologies of
consumption context that may be used in studies of culture and consumer value
content and structure.
We suggest that within-culture research might be the most effective way to
explore the effects of consumption context. This approach would hold culture
constant, so that specific aspects of consumption context and their influence on
consumer value might be explored. Questions such as the following might be
addressed in this manner:
• How does the consumption context differentially influence perceived meaning
and relative importance of means-end hierarchy content and structure?
155

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 156

articles
• Are there useful typologies of consumption contexts and/or their related norms?
• What are the across-typology differences in consumer value beliefs?
Phase IV: interaction of culture and consumption context as influences on consumer

value perceptions
Assuming that Phase I, II, and III research yields insights into culture’s various
forms of influence and the moderating role consumption context, the purpose of
the next phase should be to examine their interaction. The interaction of culture
and context represents an important gap in the empirical literature (Kroonenberg
and Kashima, 1997). A particularly important research direction concerns
whether consumption context typologies can help explain cross-cultural variation
in consumer value perceptions. Also, are certain norms more relevant to certain
cultures? For example, norms have been shown to be more influential in collec-
tive cultures (Triandis, 1995) or tight ‘close-knit’ societies (Voss and Abraham,
2000) than in individualist cultures. Choi and Nisbett (1998) find evidence that
Americans are person-centered and Asians are context or situation-centered;
thus, Americans are more likely to rely on dispositional explanations of behavior
and Asians rely on contextual explanations. Other researchers have made the
argument that the consumption context is actually a symbolic cultural product
itself (see Bourdieu, 1977; Holland and Quinn, 1987). Additional research would
provide important insight into these issues.
Concluding comments
Given the importance to business of consumer value strategies and global market
opportunities, we believe that the time is ripe for new research into cross-cultural
applications of consumer value concepts and theoretical models. While the role of
culture as an influence on product/service choice has long been acknowledged, the
current literature offers inadequate understanding of how and why culture plays
its influence role. Earlier research oversimplified this role by assuming a direct
influence on product choice. The evidence for this view is weak. Later research
suggested that cultural values coincide with the desired end states component in
means-end model of consumer value. We believe this view is incomplete.
In this article, we offer a more complex view of culture’s influence on consumer
value perceptions, a key input into product/service choice, which is grounded in
the literatures on consumer value and culture. Our conceptual model suggests
how culture may influence both the content and structure of consumer means-
end perceptions of product/service value. This model can be used to guide
needed research on the cross-cultural applicability of consumer value models, and
we believe that the research agenda proposed in this article is vital to advancing
marketing knowledge of consumer value strategies in a global market place.
156

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 157

Note
1 Throughout this article, we utilize the term ‘consumer’ rather than ‘customer’ when
referring to value perceptions. Consumer represents a broader term than customer
and refers to end users who may be household or industrial buyers and users of
products and services.
References
Aaker, J.L. (2000) ‘Accessibility or Diagnosticity? Disentangling the Influence of Culture
on Persuasion Processes and Attitudes’, Journal of Consumer Research 26 (March):
340–57.
Aaker, J.L. and Maheswaran, D. (1997) ‘The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Per-
suasion’, Journal of Consumer Research 24 (December): 315–28.
Allen, M.W. and Ng, S.H. (1999) ‘The Direct and Indirect Influences of Human Values
on Product Ownership’, Journal of Economic Psychology 20(1): 5–39.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U. (1999) ‘Goal Setting and Goal Striving in Consumer
Behavior’, Journal of Marketing 63 (Special Issue): 19–32.
Bagozzi, R.P., Wong, N., Abe, S. and Bergami, M. (2000) ‘Cultural and Situational
Contingencies and the Theory of Reasoned Action: Application to Fast Food
Restaurant Consumption’, Journal of Consumer Psychology 9(2): 97–106.
Belk, R.W. (1975) ‘Situational Variables and Consumer Behavior’, Journal of Consumer
Research 2 (December): 157–64.
Berry, J.W. (1993) ‘An Ecological Approach to Understanding Cognition Across
Cultures’, in J. Altarribe (ed.) Cognition and Culture: A Cross-Cultural Approach to
Psychology, pp. 361–75. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Berry, J.W., Poortinga, Y.H., Segall, M.H. and Dasen, P.R. (1992) Cross-Cultural
Psychology: Research and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Birgelen, M. van, de Ruyter, K., de Jong, A. and Wetzels, M. (2002) ‘Customer
Evaluations of After-Sales Service Contact Modes: An Empirical Analysis of National
Culture’s Consequences’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 19(1): 43–64.
Bock, P.K. (1994) ‘Introduction: Universal and Particular’, in P.K. Bock (ed.) Handbook
of Psychological Anthropology, pp. x–xix. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Botschen, G. and Hemetsberger, A. (1998) ‘Diagnosing Means-End Structures to
Determine the Degree of Potential Marketing Program Standardization’, Journal of
Business Research 42(2): 151–9.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Briley, D.A., Morris, M.W. and Simonson, I. (2000) ‘Reasons as Carriers of Culture:
Dynamic Versus Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making’,
Journal of Consumer Research 27 (September): 157–78.
Briley, D.A. and Wyer, R.S., Jr. (2002) ‘The Effect of Group Membership Salience on the
Avoidance of Negative Outcomes: Implications for Social and Consumer Deci-
sions’, Journal of Consumer Research 29(3): 400–15.
Burton, D. (2002) ‘Towards a Critical Multicultural Marketing Theory’, Marketing
Theory 2(2): 207–36.
Choi, I. and Nisbett, R.E. (1998) ‘Situational Salience and Cultural Differences in the
Correspondence Bias and Actor–Observer Differences’, Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin 24: 949–60.
157

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 158

articles
Cialdini, R.B., Kallgren, C.A. and Reno, R.R. (1991) ‘A Focus Theory of Normative
Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in
Human Behavior’, in L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
24, pp. 201–14. New York: Academic Press.
Clark, T. (1990) ‘International Marketing and National Character: A Review and
Proposal for an Integrative Theory’, Journal of Marketing 54 (October): 66–79.
Cronin, J.J., Jr., Brady, M.K. and Hult, G.T.M. (2000) ‘Assessing the Effects of Quality,
Value, and Customer Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service
Environments’, Journal of Retailing 76 (Summer): 193–218.
Cui, G. and Choudhury, P. (1998) ‘Effective Strategies for Ethnic Segmentation and
Marketing’, in J.-C. Chebat and B. Oumlil (eds) Proceedings of the 1998 Multicultural
Marketing Conference, pp. 354–8. Montreal: Academy of Marketing Science.
Darpy, D. (2002) ‘Le report d’achat expliqué par le trait de procrastination et le poten-
tiel de procrastination’, Recherche et Applications en Marketing 17(2): 1–21.
Dawar, N. (1994) ‘Marketing Universals: Consumers’ Use of Brand Name, Price,
Physical Appearance, and Retailer Reputation as Signals of Product Quality’, Journal
of Marketing 58(2): 81–96.
Desai, K.K. and Hoyer, W.D. (2000) ‘Descriptive Characteristics of Memory-Based
Consideration Sets: Influence of Usage Occasion Frequency and Usage Location
Familiarity’, Journal of Consumer Research 27 (December): 309–23.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E., Jr. (1993) ‘Corporate Culture, Customer
Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis’, Journal of
Marketing 57 (January): 23–37.
Dibley, A. and Baker, S. (2001) ‘Uncovering the Links between Brand Choice and
Personal Values among Young British and Spanish Girls’, Journal of Consumer
Behaviour 1(1): 77–93.
DiMaggio, P. (1997) ‘Culture and Cognition’, Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263–87.
Djursaa, M. and Kragh, S.U. (1998) ‘Central and Peripheral Consumption Contexts:
The Uneven Globalization of Consumer Behavior’, International Business Review
7(1): 23–38.
Du Preez, J.P., Diamantopoulos, A. and Schlegelmilch, B.B. (1994) ‘Product
Standardization and Attribute Saliency: A Three-Country Empirical Comparison’,
Journal of International Marketing 2(1): 7–28.
Erdem, O., Oumlil, A.B. and Tuncalp, S. (1999) ‘Consumer Values and the Importance
of Store Attributes’, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 27(4):
137–44.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975) Belief, Attitude and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, G. (1988) Mindsets: The Role of Culture and Perception in International Relations.
Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, Inc.
Fisher, R.J. and Ackerman, D. (1998) ‘The Effects of Recognition and Group Need on
Volunteerism: A Social Norm Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research 25
(December): 262–75.
Flint, D.J., Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (2002) ‘Exploring the Phenomenon of
Customers’ Desired Value Change in a Business-to-Business Context’, Journal of
Marketing 66 (October): 1–30.
Gardial, S.F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D.W. and Burns, M. J. (1994)
‘Comparing Consumers’ Recall of Prepurchase and Postpurchase Product Evaluation
Experiences’, Journal of Consumer Research 20 (March): 548–60.
158

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 159

Geistfeld, D.H., Sproles, G.B. and Badenhop, S.B. (1977) ‘The Concept and Measure-
ment of a Hierarchy of Product Characteristics’, in W.D. Perreault, Jr. (ed.) Advances
in Consumer Research 4, pp. 302–7. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Grunert, K.G. and Beckmann, S.C. (1999) ‘A Comparative Analysis of the Influence of
Economic Culture on East and West Germany Consumers’ Subjective Product
Meanings’, Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(3): 367–90.
Gundlach, G., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995) ‘The Structure of Commitment in
Exchange’, Journal of Marketing 59 (January): 78–92.
Gutman, J. (1982) ‘A Means-End Chain Model Based on Consumer Categorization
Processes’, Journal of Marketing 46 (Spring): 60–72.
Hall, E.T. (1977) Beyond Culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press.
Hall, E.T. (1980) The Silent Language. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Hampden-Turner, C.M. and Trompenaars, F. (1993) The Seven Cultures of Capitalism:
Value Systems for Creating Wealth in the United States, Britain, Japan, Germany,
France, Sweden and the Netherlands. New York: Doubleday.
Heide, J.B. and John, G. (1992) ‘Do Norms Matter in Marketing Relationships?’,
Journal of Marketing 56 (April): 32–44.
Hirschman, E.C. and LaBarbera, P.A. (1990) ‘Dimensions of Possession Importance’,
Psychology & Marketing 7(3): 215–33.
Hise, R.T., Solano-Mendez, R. and Gresham, L.G. (2003) ‘Doing Business in
Mexico’, Thunderbird International Business Review 45(2): 211–24.
Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s Consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Holbrook, M.B. (1994) ‘The Nature of Customer Value: An Axiology of Services in the
Consumption Experience’, in R. Rust and R.L. Oliver (eds) Service Quality: New
Directions in Theory and Practice, pp. 21–71. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Holland, D. and Quinn, N. (1987) Cultural Models in Language and Thought.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoyer, W.D. and Deshpandé, R. (1982) ‘Cross-Cultural Influences on Buyer Behavior:
The Impact of Hispanic Ethnicity’, in B.J. Walker et al. (eds) An Assessment of
Marketing Thought & Practice 48, pp. 89–92. Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Jacobs, L., Keown, C., Worthley, R. and Ghymn, K.-I. (1991) ‘Cross-Cultural Colour
Comparisons: Global Marketers Beware!’, International Marketing Review 8(3):
21–30.
Januszewska, R., Viaene, J. and Verbeke, W. (2000) ‘Market Segmentation for Choco-
late in Belgium and Poland’, Journal of Euro-Marketing 9(3): 1–27.
Johnson, M.D. (1998) Customer Orientation and Market Action. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kahle, L. and Timmer, S.G. (1983) ‘A Theory and a Method for Studying Values’, in
L.R. Kahle (ed.) Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America,
pp. 43–69. New York: Praeger.
Kale, S.H. (1995) ‘Grouping Euroconsumers: A Culture-Based Clustering Approach’,
Journal of International Marketing 3(3): 35–48.
Kefalas, A.G. (1998) ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’, Thunderbird International Business
Review 40(6): 547–62.
Keller, K. (1993) ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand
Equity’, Journal of Marketing 57(1): 1–22.
Kim, U., Park, Y.-S. and Park, D. (2000) ‘The Challenge of Cross-Cultural Psychology’,
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 31 (January): 63–75.
159

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 160

articles
Kitayama, S. and Markus, H.R. (1995) ‘Culture and Self: Implications for Inter-
nationalizing Psychology’, in N.R. Goldberger and J.B. Veroff (eds) The Culture and
Psychology Reader, pp. 366–83. New York: New York University Press.
Kluckhohn, F. and Strodtbeck, F. (1961) Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, IL:
Row, Peterson.
Knight, G. (2000) ‘Entrepreneurship and Marketing Strategy: The SME under
Globalization’, Journal of International Marketing 8(2): 12–32.
Kroonenberg, P.M. and Kashima, Y. (1997) ‘Rules in Context: A Three-Mode Principal
Component Analysis of Mann et al.’s Data on Cross-Cultural Differences in Respect
for Others’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 28(4): 463–80.
Lai, A.W. (1991) ‘Consumption Situation and Product Knowledge in the Adoption of a
New Product’, European Journal of Marketing 25(10): 55–67.
Lai, A.W. (1995) ‘Consumer Values, Product Benefits and Customer Value: A
Consumption Behavior Approach’, in F.R. Kardes and M. Sujan (eds) Advances in
Consumer Research 22, pp. 381–7. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Leung, K. (1987) ‘Some Determinants of Reactions to Procedural Models for Conflict
Resolution’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(5): 898–908.
Levitt, T. (1983) ‘The Globalization of Markets’, Harvard Business Review 61
(May–June): 92–102.
McCort, D.J. and Malhotra, N.K. (1993) ‘Culture and Consumer Behavior: Toward an
Understanding of Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior in International Marketing’,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing 6(2): 91–127.
McCracken, G. (1986) ‘Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the
Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods’, Journal of
Consumer Research 13 (June): 71–84.
McCracken, G. (1990) ‘Culture and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological
Perspective’, Journal of the Market Research Society 32(1): 3–11.
Madden, T.J., Hewett, K. and Roth, M.S. (2000) ‘Managing Images in Different
Cultures: A Cross-National Study of Color Meanings and Preferences’, Journal of
International Marketing 8(4): 90–107.
Maheswaran, D. (1994) ‘Country-of-Origin as a Stereotype: Effects of Consumer
Expertise and Attribute Strength of Product Evaluation’, Journal of Consumer
Research 21 (September): 354–6.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991) ‘Culture and the Self: Implications for
Cognition, Emotion and Motivation’, Psychological Review 98(2): 224–53.
Maslow, A.H. (1959) New Knowledge in Human Values. New York: Harper & Row.
Matsumoto, D. (1996) Culture and Psychology. New York: Brooks Cole.
Money, R.B., Gilly, M.C. and Graham, J.L. (1998) ‘Explorations of National Culture
and Word-of-Mouth Referral Behavior in the Purchase of Industrial Services in the
United States and Japan’, Journal of Marketing 62(4): 76–87.
Myers, J.H. and Shocker, A.D. (1981) ‘The Nature of Product-Related Attributes’,
Research in Marketing 5: 211–36.
Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996) ‘National Culture and New Product Develop-
ment: An Integrative Review’, Journal of Marketing 60 (January): 61–72.
Nicholls, J.A.F., Roslow, S., Dublish, S. and Comer, L.B. (1996) ‘Relationship between
Situational Variables and Purchasing in India and the USA’, International Marketing
Review 13(6): 6–21.
Olson, J.C. and Reynolds, T.J. (1983) ‘Understanding Consumers’ Cognitive Structures:
Implications for Advertising Strategy’, in L. Percy and A. Woodside (eds) Advertising
160

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 161

and Consumer Psychology, pp. 77–90. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Osterhus, T.L. (1997) ‘Pro-Social Consumer Influence Strategies: When and How Do
They Work?’, Journal of Marketing 61(4): 16–29.
Paswan, A.K., Pappu, M. and Young, J.A. (2002) ‘Relational Norms and Goal
Orientation in the Indian Market’, Journal of International Consumer Marketing
15(1): 53–74.
Patterson, P.G. (2000) ‘A Contingency Approach to Modeling Satisfaction with
Management Consulting Services’, Journal of Service Research 3(2): 138–53.
Patterson, P.G., Johnson, L.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1997) ‘Modeling the Determinants of
Customer Satisfaction for Business-to-Business Professional Services’, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 25 (Winter): 4–17.
Pavia, T.M. and Mason, M. (2001) ‘Exploring Water Consumption Using a Gender
Continuum: The Case of the American West’, Academy of Marketing Science
Review [Online] 01(10). Available at: http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/amsrev/theory/
pavia10–01.html (accessed 28 February 2005).
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H. and Allen, D. (1995) ‘A Means-End Chain Approach to
Consumer Goal Structures’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 12(3):
227–44.
Pitts, R.E., Wong, J.K. and Whalen, D.J. (1991) ‘Consumers’ Evaluative Structures in
Two Ethical Situations: A Means-End Approach’, Journal of Business Research 22(2):
119–30.
Reynolds, T.J. and Gutman, J. (1988) ‘Laddering Theory, Method, Analysis, and
Interpretation’, Journal of Advertising Research 28(1): 11–31.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Roth, M.S. (1995) ‘The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics on the Performance of
Global Brand Image Strategies’, Journal of Marketing Research 32 (May): 163–75.
Roth, M.S. and Moorman, C. (1988) ‘The Cultural Content of Cognition and the
Cognitive Content of Culture: Implications for Consumer Research’, in M. J.
Houston (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, pp. 403–10. Boston, MA: Association
for Consumer Research.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992) ‘Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical
Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries’, in M. Zanna (ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 25, pp. 1–65. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S.H. (1997) ‘Values and Culture’, in J.F. Schumaker, D. Munro and S.C. Carr
(eds) Motivation and Culture, pp. 69–84. New York: Routledge.
Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987) ‘Toward a Universal Psychological Structure of
Human Values’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(3): 550–62.
Sheth, J.N., Newman, B.I. and Gross, B.L. (1991) Consumption Values and Market
Choices – Theory and Applications. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.
Sheth, J.N., Sisodia, R.S. and Sharma, A. (2000) ‘The Antecedents and Consequences of
Customer-Centric Marketing’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28
(Winter): 55–66.
Sojka, J.Z. and Tansuhaj, P.S. (1995) ‘Cross-Cultural Consumer Research: A Twenty-
Year Review’, Advances in Consumer Research 22: 461–74.
Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999) ‘A Cross-National
Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer
Innovativeness’, Journal of Marketing 63 (April): 55–69.
Tai, S.H.C. and Wong, Y.H. (1998) ‘Advertising Decision Making in Asia: “Glocal”
versus “regcal” Approach’, Journal of Managerial Issues 10 (Fall): 318–39.
161

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 162

articles
Taylor, S.E. (1981) ‘The Interface of Cognitive and Social Psychology’, in J.H. Harvey
(ed.) Cognition, Social Behavior, and the Environment, pp. 189–211. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
ter Hofstede, F., Audenaert, A., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1998) ‘An
Investigation into the Association Pattern Technique as a Quantitative Approach to
Measuring Means-End Chains’, International Journal of Research in Marketing 15(1):
37–50.
ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1999) ‘International Market
Segmentation Based on Consumer-Product Relations’, Journal of Marketing Research
36(1): 1–17.
Thogersen, J. (2002) ‘Direct Experience and the Strength of the Personal Norm’,
Psychology & Marketing 19(10): 881–93.
Triandis, H.C. (1972) The Analysis of Subjective Culture. New York: John Wiley.
Triandis, H.C. (1989) ‘The Self and Social Behavior in Differing Cultural Contexts’,
Psychological Review 96(3): 506–20.
Triandis, H.C. (1994) Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Triandis, H.C. (1995) Individualism and Collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H.C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M., Asai, M. and Lucca, N. (1988) ‘Indi-
vidualism–Collectivism: Cross-Cultural Studies On Self–Ingroup Relationships’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54(2): 323–38.
Tse, D.K., Wong, J.K. and Tan, C.T. (1988) ‘Towards some Standardized Cross-
Cultural Consumption Values’, in M.J. Houston (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research
15, pp. 387–95. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Valette-Florence, P. (1998) ‘A Causal Analysis of Means-End Hierarchies in a Cross-
Cultural Context: Methodological Refinements’, Journal of Business Research 42(2):
161–6.
Veroff, J.B. and Goldberger, N.R. (1995) ‘What’s in a Name? The case for “Inter-
cultural” Psychology’, in N.R. Goldberger and J.B. Veroff (eds) The Culture and
Psychology Reader, pp. 3–21. New York: New York University Press.
Voss, T. and Abraham, M. (2000) ‘Rational Choice Theory in Sociology: A Survey’, in
S.R. Quah and A. Sales (eds) The International Handbook of Sociology, pp. 50–83.
London: SAGE.
Webster, C. (1996) ‘Hispanic and Anglo Interviewer and Respondent Ethnicity and
Gender: The Impact on Survey Response Quality’, Journal of Marketing Research 33
(February): 62–72.
Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., Lemmink, J. and Koelemeijer, K. (1995) ‘Measuring
Customer Service Quality in International Marketing Channels: A Multimethod
Approach’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 10(5): 50–9.
Wilson, D.T. (2003) ‘Value Exchange as the Foundation Stone of Relationship
Marketing’, Marketing Theory 3(1): 175–8.
Woodruff, R.B. (1997) ‘Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage’,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 25(2): 139–53.
Woodruff, R.B. and Gardial, S.F. (1996) Know Your Customer: New Approaches to
Customer Value and Satisfaction. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Zaltman, G. and Coulter, R.H. (1995) ‘Seeing the Voice of the Customer: Metaphor-
Based Advertising Research’, Journal of Advertising Research 35(4): 35–51.
Zeithaml, V.A. (1988) ‘Consumer Perceptions of Price, Quality, and Value: A Means-
End Model and Synthesis of Evidence’, Journal of Marketing 52 (July): 2–22.
162

01_MT 5_2 5/24/05 1:12 PM Page 163

Jeffrey W. Overby is an assistant professor of marketing and international business in

the Department of Marketing at Florida State University. He holds a doctorate from the
University of Tennessee, Knoxville. His research interests focus on customer value
determination, service quality, and cross-cultural marketing issues. His work has
appeared in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Marketing
Review, Journal of Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, Industrial
Marketing Management, and numerous other journals and domestic and international
conferences. Address: Florida State University, College of Business, Tallahassee, FL
32306, USA. [email: joverby@cob.fsu.edu]
Robert B. Woodruff is the Proffitt’s Inc. professor of marketing and the department
head for the Department of Marketing, Logistics and Transportation at the University
of Tennessee. He holds a doctorate from Indiana University. His research interests focus
on customer value determination, customer satisfaction, and customer value manage-
ment. He has published five books, and his research has appeared in numerous
journals, including Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, and Industrial Marketing Management.
Address: University of Tennessee, 313 Stokely Management Center, Knoxville, TN
37996, USA. [email: woodru00@utk.edu]
Sarah Fisher Gardial is associate professor and assistant dean in the College of Business
Administration at the University of Tennessee. She holds a doctorate from the
University of Houston. Her research interests focus on customer value and satisfaction,
consumer decision-making and information processing, and buyer/seller dyadic rela-
tions. Her work has appeared in numerous journals, including Journal of Consumer
Research, Journal of Advertising, Industrial Marketing Management, and Journal of
Macromarketing. Address: University of Tennessee, College of Business Administration,
527D Stokely Management Center, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
[email: sgardial@utk.edu]
163

The Influence of Culture Upon Consumers' Desired Value Perceptions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Influence of Culture Upon Consumers' Desired Value Perceptions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Influence of Culture Upon Consumers' Desired Value Perceptions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing Theory

The influence of culture upon consumers' desired value perceptions: A research

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://mtq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Jun 15, 2005

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

Volume 5(2): 139–163

The influence of culture upon consumers’

Sarah Fisher Gardial

Wherever one turns today, globalization issues confront organizations. Attractive

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Consumer value perception and means-end theory

After reviewing many definitions of customer value in the literature, Woodruff

Means-end content and structure

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

consumption of a product or service in a use situational context. Past research

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

Article Empirical or National

Dibley and Empirical No Laddering Spain and United

Culture and means-end theory

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

attempted to incorporate culture. It indicates very limited research on the influ-

Culture as values and norms

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

Proposed cultural-based model of consumer value

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Culture as a perceptual lens

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

attribute, consequence, or desired end-state symbolizes to a consumer. Because

Culture and consumer value meaning

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Culture and consumer value importance

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

Culture, context, and means-end hierarchies

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

marketing theory 5(2)

argue for more context-based research of culturally driven behavior, as do Briley

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014

The influence of culture

Consumer value and culture research agenda

In this article we present a framework for understanding how culture influences

Phase I: cross-cultural research on consumer value

Downloaded from mtq.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on October 9, 2014