Country of Comparisons for High, Middle and Low Ethnocentric Consumers’ Preference of Foreign and Domestic Products.

(H2)

High Ethnocentrism (n=3)

Malaysia China Korea Japan
Mean Mean t-value Mean t-value Mean t-value
Television 4.33 4.00 -0.250ns 5.00 0.459ns 6.33 2.000ns
Automobile 4.67 4.00 -0.100ns 5.00 0.378ns 6.00 1.000ns
Mobile phone 4.67 4.33 -0.500ns 5.00 1.000ns 6.33 2.500ns
Shampoo 4.67 3.33 -0.378ns 5.67 1.000ns 5.67 0.577ns
Notes: Significant at .001* Significant at .05** ns=not significant
3 pairs of comparison; Malaysia vs China, Malaysia vs Korea and Malaysia vs Japan

Middle Ethnocentrism (n=40)

Malaysia China Korea Japan
Mean Mean t-value Mean t-value Mean t-value
Television 4.85 3.60 -5.161* 5.43 2.481ns 6.05 5.495*
Automobile 5.43 3.73 -7.891* 5.23 -0.860ns 6.15 3.423*
Mobile phone 4.68 3.33 -6.609* 5.33 3.045** 5.55 3.520*
Shampoo 5.33 3.95 -4.504* 5.08 -1.533ns 5.48 1.030ns
Notes: Significant at .001* Significant at .05** ns=not significant
3 pairs of comparison; Malaysia vs China, Malaysia vs Korea and Malaysia vs Japan
 Low Ethnocentrism (n=57)
Malaysia China Korea Japan
Mean Mean t-value Mean t-value Mean t-value
Television 3.47 2.42 -4.057* 5.46 7.217* 6.32 12.331*
Automobile 3.96 2.32 -6.476* 5.07 4.019* 6.53 12.789*
Mobile phone 3.32 2.40 -3.519* 5.30 6.682* 5.89 9.487*
Shampoo 4.18 2.44 -7.781* 4.82 3.025** 5.00 3.414*
Notes: Significant at .001* Significant at .05** ns=not significant
3 pairs of comparison; Malaysia vs China, Malaysia vs Korea and Malaysia vs Japan

Summary of Comparison (Mean)

Products High Ethnocentrism Middle Ethnocentrism Low Ethnocentrism

Television PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Automobile PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEM > PE K > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Mobile phone PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Shampoo PEJ = PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEM > PE K > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Discussion

High Ethnocentrism:

Based on the mean value, generally, high ethnocentrism consumers prefers products firstly, from Japan (Developed Country), followed

by products from Korea. Domestic products come third and the least preferred products are products from China. However, based on

significant level of .001 and .05, there is no significant difference in the preference of products between Malaysia vs China, Malaysia vs
Korea and Malaysia vs Japan. This may be due to the small sample size and also based on Cluster Analysis, the recommended

clustering for the overall sample data is 2 instead of 3. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that high ethnocentric consumers prefer
domestic products over foreign products.

Middle Ethnocentrism:

Overall, based on the mean value, mid level ethnocentrism consumers, firstly, prefer products from Japan (Developed Country),
followed by products from either Korea or Malaysia and lastly products from China (Less Developed Country). However, based on

significant level of .001 and .05, there is no significant difference in the preference of television, automobile and shampoo between
Malaysia and Korea. (May also be due to the error of clustering). Thus, it can be concluded that mid level ethnocentric consumers
prefer foreign products, especially products from more developed country such as Japan compared to domestic products.

Low Ethnocentrism:

Generally, low ethnocentric consumers prefer products from Japan (Developed Country), followed by Korea (Newly Developed),
Malaysia and lastly China (Less Developed).
Conclusion
Hypotheses Results
H2(a) High ethnocentric consumers prefer domestic products compared to low ethnocentric Hypothesis not supported
consumers.
H2(b) Low ethnocentric consumers prefer foreign products compared to high ethnocentric Hypothesis partially supported*
consumers.
*Low ethnocentric consumers do prefer foreign products, however there is no significant difference their preference with the preference of
high ethnocentric consumers as high ethnocentric consumer too prefer foreign products.
COO (Country’s Development) & Product Preference (H3)
COO (Country’s Development) & Product Preference: Television
COO/Product Preference
Japan Korea Malaysia China
Ethnocentrism Tendencies Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value
High Ethnocentrism (n=3) 6.33 5.46 4.33 4.00
Middle Ethnocentrism (n=40) 6.05 5.43 4.85 3.60
Low Ethnocentrism (n=57) 6.32 0.932ns 5.00 0.172ns 3.47 11.195* 2.42 9.554*
Note: Significant at .001* ns=not significant

COO (Country’s Development) & Product Preference: Automobile

COO/Product Preference
Japan Korea Malaysia China
Ethnocentrism Tendencies Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value
High Ethnocentrism (n=3) 6.00 5.00 4.57 4.00
Middle Ethnocentrism (n=40) 6.15 5.23 5.43 3.73
Low Ethnocentrism (n=57) 6.53 2.950ns 5.07 0.162ns 3.96 13.482* 2.32 18.137*
Note: Significant at .001* ns=not significant
COO (Country’s Development) & Product Preference: Mobile Phone
COO/Product Preference
Japan Korea Malaysia China
Ethnocentrism Tendencies Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value
High Ethnocentrism (n=3) 6.33 5.00 4.67 4.33
Middle Ethnocentrism (n=40) 5.55 5.33 4.68 3.33
Low Ethnocentrism (n=57) 5.89 1.065ns 5.00 0.069ns 3.32 10.562* 2.40 7.462*
Note: Significant at .001* ns=not significant

COO (Country’s Development) & Product Preference: Shampoo

COO/Product Preference
Japan Korea Malaysia China
Ethnocentrism Tendencies Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value Mean F-value
High Ethnocentrism (n=3) 5.67 5.67 4.67 4.33
Middle Ethnocentrism (n=40) 5.48 5.08 5.33 3.95
Low Ethnocentrism (n=57) 5.00 1.467ns 4.82 0.886ns 4.18 8.384* 2.44 13.709*
Note: Significant at .001* ns=not significant
Summary of Comparison (Mean)

Products High Ethnocentrism Middle Ethnocentrism Low Ethnocentrism

Television PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Automobile PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEM > PE K > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Mobile phone PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC
Shampoo PEJ = PEK > PE M > PEC PEJ > PEM > PE K > PEC PEJ > PEK > PE M > PEC

Discussion

There is no significant difference between the preferences of products from Japan and Korea between high, mid level and low
ethnocentric consumers. Based on the mean values, generally, all 3 groups of consumers prefer products from more developed
country (Japan) first, followed by products from Korea (Newly Developed Country) and the prefer products from China the least (Less
Developed Coutry). Therefore, it can be concluded that Malaysian consumers prefer products from developed country such as Japan to
products from less developed country such as China regardless of the level of their ethnocentrism level.

Conclusion
Hypotheses Results
H3(a) Low ethnocentric consumers prefer products made in more developed countries compared to less Hypothesis supported
developed countries.
H3(b) High ethnocentric consumers are not influenced by the level of development of the country of origin Hypothesis not supported
of the products.