See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276656210

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism

as Drivers of Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity Theory Perspective

Article in Journal of International Marketing · March 2015

DOI: 10.1509/jim.14.0038

CITATIONS READS

157 5,848

3 authors:

Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth Vesna Žabkar

IESEG School of Management University of Ljubljana
17 PUBLICATIONS 2,103 CITATIONS 91 PUBLICATIONS 2,183 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Adamantios Diamantopoulos
University of Vienna
243 PUBLICATIONS 22,587 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

In search of sustainable and responsible consumption (SRC) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Adamantios Diamantopoulos on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National
Identity, and Consumer
Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of
Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity
Theory Perspective
Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth, Vesna Žabkar, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos

ABSTRACT
Consumers’ preferences for domestic over imported products have been investigated in various isolated studies, but
never in a single model incorporating several in-group and out-group consumer orientations at the same time. Building
on social identity theory, this study develops and tests—in two countries—a conceptual model that assesses the relative
influence of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism on consumers’ product judg-
ments and willingness to buy domestic and foreign products. Furthermore, the study develops an empirically based
typology of consumer segments using these sociopsychological traits and subsequently profiles them on consumption-
relevant variables. The findings reveal several undiscovered patterns regarding the interplay of consumer ethnocentrism,
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as drivers of consumer behavior and offer managerial guidance on
their relevance as segmentation variables.

Keywords: consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, consumer cosmopolitanism, structural equation modeling,
cluster analysis

omestic country bias, or consumers’ bias in their ethnocentrism to explain why consumers prefer prod-

D judgments and preferences for domestic products

over foreign alternatives, is well documented in
the literature (e.g., Balabanis and Diamantopoulos
2004; Wang and Chen 2004; Watson and Wright 2000).
Typically, researchers employ the construct of consumer
Katharina Petra Zeugner-Roth is Assistant Professor of Marketing,
IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS), Université Catholique
de Lille (e-mail: k.zeugner-roth@ieseg.fr). Vesna Žabkar is Professor
of Marketing, Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana (e-mail:
vesna.zabkar@ef.uni-lj.si). Adamantios Diamantopoulos is Professor
of International Marketing, Department of International Marketing,
University of Vienna (e-mail: adamantios.diamantopoulos@univie.
ac.at). This research was supported by a grant from the Jubiläums-
fonds of the Austrian National Bank (project number 12288) and the
Dr. Theo & Friedl Schöller Research Center for Business and Society.
The authors also thank the JIM review team for helpful comments on
previous versions of this article. Bulent Menguc served as associate
editor for this article.
ucts from their home country to foreign alternatives (for
a review, see Shankarmahesh 2006). Consumer ethno-
centrism is based primarily on an economic motive for
domestic country bias and represents a normative belief
that it is inappropriate to buy foreign products and that
consumers should instead support domestic companies
through the purchase of domestic products (Shimp and
Sharma 1987). More recent research, however, has
asserted that an exclusive focus on consumer ethnocen-
trism “is, at best, likely to render an incomplete picture
of local bias-induced consumer behavior” (Josiassen
2011, p. 125) and that consideration of a broader range
of consumer traits is necessary to comprehensively
Journal of International Marketing
©2015, American Marketing Association
Vol. 23, No. 2, 2015, pp. 25–54
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 25

explain consumer preferences for domestic and foreign
products.
This study goes back to the conceptual roots of con-
sumer ethnocentrism as outlined by social identity
theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel and Turner 1986) to specify
alternative antecedents of consumer behavior. Social
identity theory makes a clear distinction between a per-
son’s behavior toward the in-group, which is the home
country in our case, and out-groups, which are foreign
countries (Brewer 1999; Verlegh 2007). Whereas con-
sumer ethnocentrism mainly focuses on bias against
(products from) out-groups to explain consumers’ pref-
erences for their home country’s products (Shimp and
Sharma 1987), little is known about its relative influ-
ence if other predictors of pro-in-group or pro-out-
group behavior are considered.
Our study draws on social identity theory and advances
extant research on the impact of sociopsychological
traits of consumer behavior by examining the predictive
power of one pro-in-group construct (national identity),
one anti-out-group construct (consumer ethnocentrism),
and one pro-out-group construct (consumer cosmopoli-
tanism) as well as the interplay among these constructs
in both domestic and foreign purchase contexts. This
method contrasts with previous studies that have mainly
focused on either domestic (e.g., Verlegh 2007) or for-
eign (e.g., Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
product preferences rather than a simultaneous consid-
eration of both types of product purchases. Moreover,
to the best of our knowledge, no previous study has
evaluated the joint predictive validity of consumer eth-
nocentrism, national identity, and consumer cosmopoli-
tanism as drivers of consumer behavior and thereby also
explicitly tested for their relative importance regarding
their direct and indirect (through product judgments
[PJ]) effects on consumers’ willingness to buy (WTB)
domestic and foreign products.
Investigating consumer ethnocentrism jointly with
national identity is important because, according to
social identity theory, in-group bias due to national
identity results from one’s feeling of attachment to the
in-group, without making specific ex ante assumptions
about the treatment of the out-group (Brewer 1999;
Brewer and Gaertner 2003). Therefore, disentangling
consumers’ ethnocentric tendencies from their sense of
national identity is important, especially with respect to
the treatment of in-groups (home country products) ver-
sus out-groups (foreign products). As far as consumer
cosmopolitanism is concerned, its pro-out-group nature
26 Journal of International Marketing
suggests that it can potentially overcome domestic coun-
try bias (for a collection of essays on the subject, see
Prince 2012). However, “extant research on consumer
cosmopolitanism has largely ignored potential outcome
variables, despite their obvious managerial relevance”
(Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009, p. 416). Specifically,
consumer cosmopolitanism has primarily been treated
as a variable predicting consumers’ intentions to pur-
chase global brands (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and
Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
Laroche 2011; Zhou and Belk 2004), though conceptu-
alizations of the construct pertain more to variety seek-
ing and diversity appreciation than searching for the
same (global) brands at home and abroad (Beck 2004;
Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012). Further-
more, although consumer cosmopolitanism and con-
sumer ethnocentrism are negatively correlated—because
the open-mindedness and variety seeking of consumer
cosmopolitans make it difficult for them to take a
“viewpoint of unconditional support for one’s country”
(Roudometof 2005, p. 122)—research has shown that
“individuals scoring high (low) on consumer cosmopoli-
tanism cannot be automatically assumed to also score
low (high) on localism (or vice-versa)” (Riefler, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012, p. 299, emphasis added; see
also Cannon and Yaprak 2012). Thus, the extent to
which a cosmopolitan consumer also identifies with his
or her country is likely to influence his or her stance
toward not only foreign products but also domestic
products. Yet empirical evidence on the impact of con-
sumer cosmopolitanism on PJs and WTB domestic
products is lacking.
In addition to sociopsychological traits that represent
stable consumer characteristics affecting in- and out-
group bias, the latter can be influenced by consumers’
attitudes toward a specific country. Such attitudes are
reflected in typical evaluative judgments such as like/
dislike, pleasant/unpleasant, and positive/negative
(Ajzen 2001; Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999) and
are, in turn, influenced by consumers’ country images
(Roth and Diamantopoulos 2009) as well as any feelings
of animosity (Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998) or
affinity (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011) toward
the country concerned. Country attitudes can thus range
from negative through neutral to positive and must be
explicitly controlled for when investigating the impact
of sociopsychological traits on outcome variables.
Against this background, the objectives of this study are
twofold. First, from a review of the conceptual domains
of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and con-
sumer cosmopolitanism and drawing on social identity
theory, we develop and subsequently test several
hypotheses regarding these domains’ relative impact on
PJ and WTB domestic and foreign products, while con-
trolling for other potential sources of in- and out-group
bias (in the form of sociodemographics and country
attitudes). Second, we develop an empirically based
typology of consumers using consumer ethnocentrism,
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism as clus-
tering variables and then profile the identified segments
on a series of consumer characteristics and consumption-
relevant variables.
From a theoretical perspective, the main contribution of
our study is that it clarifies how alternative consumer
sociopsychological traits influence PJ and WTB in both
home and foreign market settings while explicitly
accounting for their complementary or compensatory
influences and controlling for the impact of country atti-
tudes. Such clarification is important for theory develop-
ment because the idea that people prefer products from
their home country does not necessarily imply that they
discriminate against foreign products (Brewer 1979,
1999). In this context, extant literature often conflicts
because it sometimes treats national identity as synony-
mous with consumer ethnocentrism (e.g., Keillor and
Hult 1999; Keillor et al. 1996; Thelen and Honeycutt
2004) and sometimes portrays consumer ethnocentrism
as a consequence of consumer cosmopolitanism (e.g.,
Rybina, Reardon, and Humphrey 2010; Steenkamp,
Batra, and Alden 2003; Vida and Reardon 2008).
From a managerial perspective, our results highlight key
predictors of PJ and WTB for domestic and foreign prod-
ucts and their relative importance in each case. More-
over, our segmentation scheme identifies three distinct
groups of consumers that show different tendencies in
their PJ and WTB and also differ along several other
managerially relevant characteristics. It also provides fur-
ther evidence of the distinct nature of national identity
and consumer ethnocentrism as segmentation variables;
whereas ethnocentric consumers are almost never cos-
mopolitan, people who identify strongly with their home
country also often exhibit cosmopolitan tendencies.
In the next sections, we provide the conceptual back-
ground on our focal constructs and present our research
model and key hypotheses. We then report on two
empirical studies used to test and validate our model and
identify distinct consumer groupings. We conclude by dis-
cussing the theoretical and managerial implications of our
findings and offering suggestions for further research.
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 27
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
People belong to a variety of groups according to their
gender, religion, political orientation, and nationality.
However, whether a particular group membership actu-
ally leads to intergroup behavior depends on the indi-
vidual person’s degree of identification with this group
(Hogg 2006). Social identity theory (Tajfel 1974; Tajfel
and Turner 1986) examines the relationship of the indi-
vidual with the group and is an attempt to explain when
and why people identify with and behave as part of a
group. According to social identity theory, people’s self-
image consists of an individual and a group component—
that is, a personal identity and a so-called social identity,
which is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-
concept which derives from his knowledge of his mem-
bership of a social group (or groups) together with the
emotional significance attached to that membership”
(Tajfel 1974, p. 69). Social identity theory further pro-
poses that people strive to achieve or maintain a positive
social identity, thus boosting their self-esteem, and that
this positive identity derives largely from favorable com-
parisons made between the own group (in-group) and
other groups (out-groups) (Hogg 2006; Tajfel and
Turner 2004). Because groups require some boundary
or demarcation between “in” and “out,” in-groups typi-
cally represent the groups that the individual identifies
or at least affiliates with (Turner 2010), whereas out-
groups are regarded as everything else. As Brewer
(1999, p. 432) states, “ingroup formation involves dif-
ferentiation of the social landscape into those that are
acknowledged to be ‘us’ and those that fall outside that
boundary.” In a country context, the home country is
typically considered the focal in-group, whereas foreign
countries represent the out-groups (Shankarmahesh
2006; Verlegh 2007).
With regard to in-group versus out-group behavior, it is
important to distinguish between constructs that signify
attraction to versus repulsion from a group (Josiassen
2011). Consumer ethnocentrism, national identity, and
consumer cosmopolitanism all differ substantially in
this respect, as the following conceptual discussion
shows.
Consumer Ethnocentrism
Shimp and Sharma (1987, p. 280) introduce the con-
struct of consumer ethnocentrism as “beliefs held by ...
consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality,
of purchasing foreign-made products.” According to the
broader concept of ethnocentrism, which is the “view of
things in which one’s own group is the center of every-
thing, and all others are scaled and rated with reference
to it” (Sumner 1906, p. 13), consumer ethnocentrism is
a unique form of ethnocentrism that captures only eco-
nomic motives for in-group bias, such as the fear that
opting for foreign products threatens the domestic
industry and causes unemployment (Verlegh 2007).
Thus, home country bias primarily occurs because of
anti-out-group motives, such as the rejection of foreign
products in general and the portrayal of everything for-
eign as the antithesis (Levine and Campbell 1972; Shimp
and Sharma 1987). At the same time, ethnocentric con-
sumers also want to protect their economy by purchas-
ing domestic products (e.g., Sharma 2011; Supphellen
and Rittenburg 2001), which makes ethnocentrism a
pro-in-group as well as an anti-out-group construct
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004; Sharma, Shimp,
and Shin 1995).
National Identity
National identity refers to “the importance of national
affiliation as well as the subjective significance of an
inner bond with the nation” (Blank and Schmidt 2003,
p. 296) and indicates the extent to which people identify
with and have a positive feeling of affiliation with their
own nation as well as the importance they attach to this
feeling (Feather 1981; Tajfel 1978). Being rooted in
people’s attachment to a nation, national identity
“varies on a positive–negative continuum, which
stretches from a negative identity (in the sense of an
explicit contra-identity) to a positive identity with a
nation” (Blank 2003, p. 260). However, in most cases,
national identity is likely to be positive because people
hold a positive view of themselves, which they then
transfer to the nation to which they belong (Mackie and
Smith 1998). Therefore, in this study we focus on the
positive form of national identity (for an example of
negative national identity [i.e., national disidentifica-
tion], see Josiassen 2011).
In-group bias due to national identity results solely from
a person’s feeling of attachment to the in-group without
any explicit reference to out-groups (Brewer 1999).
Therefore, national identity is fundamentally different
from consumer ethnocentrism, which postulates that in-
group bias occurs because of a feeling of superiority of the
in-group coupled with an attribution of inferiority to all
other groups to which one does not belong (Adorno et al.
1950; Levine and Campbell 1972). Therefore, national
identity is primarily a pro-in-group (rather than an anti-
out-group) construct (Bizumic et al. 2009; Brewer 1999).
28 Journal of International Marketing
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
Consumer cosmopolitanism captures “the extent to
which a consumer (1) exhibits open-mindedness towards
foreign countries and cultures, (2) appreciates the diver-
sity brought about by the availability of products from
different national and cultural origins, and (3) is posi-
tively disposed towards consuming products from dif-
ferent countries” (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw,
2012, p. 287). Thus, a key characteristic of cosmopoli-
tan consumers is their openness toward other peoples
and cultures, in that they are willing to explore and
learn from other cultures (Levy et al. 2007). Hannerz
(1990) regards the involvement with foreign people, tra-
ditions, and lifestyles as a central characteristic of cos-
mopolitan people that sets them apart from certain
tourists and expatriates who may stay abroad but sim-
ply import their home lifestyle. Cosmopolitan con-
sumers not only are open to learning from other cultures
but also appreciate the differences and variety the world
offers (Featherstone 2002). They display a positive
stance toward the availability of products from different
countries (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
and constantly indulge in products, places, and experi-
ences originating from cultures other than their own
(Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009; Riefler, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012).
Eighteenth-century research describes cosmopolitan
consumers as citizens of the world, implying that they
regard the world rather than their home country as
their personal in-group (Hill 1998). From this perspec-
tive, cosmopolitanism could also be considered a form
of “foreign in-group favoritism.” The contemporary
perspective of cosmopolitans, however, describes them
as “those who harbor a transnational frame of refer-
ence…, which means they think themselves beyond
their nation” (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
2012, p. 286). Thus, cosmopolitans do not neglect their
local ties (Cannon and Yaprak 2012; Riefler, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012) but, as open-minded
people, search for diversity and indulge in the con-
sumption of foreign products (Hannerz 1990; Levy et
al. 2007; Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009). From an
in-group/out-group perspective, this implies that cos-
mopolitan consumers know well what their in-group
(in the sense of home country) is and use the principles
and practices from their home country to compare it
with others (Thompson and Tambyah 1999). However,
because they like to experience other cultures and their
products, they are attracted by everything that the out-
group has to offer (Cannon and Yaprak 2002). There-
fore, consumer cosmopolitanism is primarily a pro-out-
group construct.
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Prior research on in-group versus out-group bias typi-
cally has examined the link between sociopsychological
traits of consumers and their ability to predict con-
sumers’ WTB, both as a direct relationship and through
PJ (Josiassen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998;
Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009; Shimp and Sharma
1987; Verlegh 2007). Such research draws on people’s
tendency to favor consistent preference systems (see
Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), in which people favor and
therefore strive to achieve consistency among their
thoughts, feelings, and actions. Therefore, consistent
with balance theory (Heider 1958), consumers’
sociopsychological traits should affect their PJ and WTB
to reduce or avoid any tension that might otherwise
arise (Josiassen 2011).
Table 1 summarizes extant findings on the individual
impact of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity,
and cosmopolitanism on these outcome variables.
Unlike prior research, our model (Figure 1) focuses
explicitly on the relative impact of sociopsychological
characteristics on domestic and foreign PJ and WTB
while explicitly controlling for the influence of country
attitudes and sociodemographics. We elaborate on the
model relationships next.
Domestic PJ and WTB
With respect to the relative importance of the three
sociopsychological constructs on domestic product pur-
chases, consumer ethnocentrism and national identity
are both based on an individual’s attachment with the
in-group (i.e., the home country) and therefore should
play a stronger role than consumer cosmopolitanism,
which focuses primarily on a person’s relationship with
out-groups (i.e., foreign countries). As Table 1 shows,
both consumer ethnocentrism and national identity bias
consumers’ PJ and WTB in favor of domestic products;
however, the mechanism that leads to in-group bias dif-
fers (Verlegh 2007). More specifically, consumers scor-
ing high on national identity prefer products from their
home country because of their “need for [a] positive
social identity, expressed through a desire to create,
maintain, or enhance the positively valued distinctive-
ness of ingroups compared to outgroups” (Turner 1999,
p. 8). This desire to positively distinguish the in-group
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 29
from the out-group subsequently leads to a (positive)
bias in the judgment of the own group and its achieve-
ments, because such judgments have more impact on the
self if the in-group identity is more important (Hogg
2006; Tajfel and Turner 2004). Verlegh (2007) demon-
strates this effect in a country context, showing that
consumers scoring high on national identity are indeed
biased in their PJ of and WTB domestic products. In
contrast, consumer ethnocentrism is based on people’s
fear that purchasing foreign (and not domestic) prod-
ucts might hurt the domestic economy (Shimp and
Sharma 1987). As such, Shimp and Sharma’s (1987)
original conceptualization (and definition) does not
even include consumers’ intentions toward domestic
products but rather highlights a clear bias against for-
eign products. Subsequent research, however, shows
that consumer ethnocentrism also (positively) biases the
willingness of consumers to buy domestic products (for
an overview of studies, see Shankarmahesh 2006), pri-
marily as a consequence of avoiding the purchase of for-
eign products.
Research on social identity theory has confirmed that
both motives are strong predictors of consumer behav-
ior, but their relative importance depends on the context
at hand. Early studies reveal that even arbitrary and vir-
tually meaningless distinctions between groups (e.g.,
preferences for certain paintings or the color of their
shirts) can lead to in-group bias in that the own group
and its achievements are better evaluated than others
(Tajfel 1974). Brewer (1979, 1999) extends these find-
ings by suggesting that in-group bias primarily results
from the motive to maintain a positive social identity
rather than to discriminate against other groups. How-
ever, discrimination can occur under certain circum-
stances, such as competition or perceived threat among
groups (Brown 2000).
Translating these results to our context implies that in-
group bias due to national identity should almost arise
naturally because even a relatively modest identification
with the home country should bias consumers’ percep-
tions in favor of domestic alternatives (Wetherell 2010).
Conversely, the strength of the impact of consumer eth-
nocentrism would depend on certain factors, such as the
degree to which certain foreign products threaten the
domestic economy (Brewer 1999; Brown 2000). In the
absence of such factors, identity motives are more likely
to bias consumers’ perceptions than their ethnocentric
tendencies. Empirical evidence also shows that the
impact of national identity on PJ and WTB is strong and
present across product categories (Verlegh 2007),
Table 1. Overview of Prior Findings

Construct Impact on… Signa Examples from the Literature

Consumer ethnocentrism
National identity
Consumer cosmopolitanism
Domestic PJ +/0 Huddleston, Good, and Stoel (2001); Josiassen (2011);
Kim and Pysarchik (2000); Strizhakova and Coulter
(2015); Supphellen and Rittenburg (2001); Verlegh (2007)
Domestic WTB +/0 Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004); Josiassen (2011);
Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan (2006); Sharma (2011);
Strizhakova and Coulter (2015); Verlegh (2007); Wang
and Chen (2004)
Foreign PJ –/0 Huddleston, Good, and Stoel (2001); Kim and Pysarchik
(2000); Klein, Ettenson, and Krishnan (2006); Klein,
Ettenson, and Morris (1998); Oberecker and Diaman-
topoulos (2011); Shimp and Sharma (1987); Verlegh
(2007)
Foreign WTB –/0 Balabanis and Diamantopoulos (2004); Klein, Ettenson,
and Krishnan (2006); Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998);
Oberecker and Diamantopoulos (2011); Sharma (2011);
Sharma, Shimp, and Shin (1995); Shimp and Sharma
(1987); Verlegh (2007)
Domestic PJ + Verlegh (2007)
Domestic WTB + Verlegh (2007)
Foreign PJ 0 Verlegh (2007)
Foreign WTB –/0 Verlegh (2007) (significant negative correlation between
national identity and foreign WTB for two of eight prod-
uct categories; remainder nonsignificant)
Domestic PJ 0 Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009)
Domestic WTB ? Not tested so far
Foreign PJ ? Not tested so far
WTB foreign products in + Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009); Riefler, Diaman-
general topoulos, and Siguaw (2012)
WTB certain global +/0 Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos (2009); Cleveland,
product categories Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011)

aEmpirical relationships found (but not necessarily hypothesized).

whereas the impact of consumer ethnocentrism tends to
be product category and country specific (Balabanis and
Diamantopoulos 2004).
In contrast to consumer ethnocentrism and national
identity, little is known about the impact of consumer
cosmopolitanism on PJ and WTB in a domestic setting
(see Table 1). Indeed, most empirical research focusing
on consumer cosmopolitanism ties this construct to con-
sumers’ preferences for specific (typically global) prod-
ucts and brands (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and
Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
Laroche 2011; Zhou and Belk 2004) without distin-
guishing domestic and foreign product origins. However,
such a distinction is clearly important because of the very
nature of consumer cosmopolitanism as a pro-out-group
construct. Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009) and
Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012) conceptu-

30 Journal of International Marketing

Figure 1. Research Model

Country
Attitudes

Consumer
Ethnocentrism

Home/Foreign Home/Foreign
H1 and
National H3
Identity PJ WTB

Consumer
Cosmopolitanism H2 and H4

Sociodemographics

Notes: Dotted lines represent control paths or previously established relationships.

ally argue and empirically demonstrate that consumer
cosmopolitanism is unrelated to consumers’ preferences
for global brands but rather predicts their preferences for
foreign products in general (regardless of whether the
latter are global brands). In a recent state-of-the-art
review, Cannon and Yaprak (2012, p. 28) conclude that
“the concept of cosmopolitanism can be confounded by
the fact that cosmopolitans can have strong local connec-
tions.” According to the literature, a cosmopolitan orien-
tation is characterized by the formation of multiple local
and foreign loyalties (Beck 2004; Riefler, Diamantopou-
los, and Siguaw 2012), which finally determine judg-
ments and behavior. For cosmopolitan consumers, the
home country and its products might serve as a standard
of comparison when interacting with foreign countries
and trying out new customs and products (Thompson
and Tambyah 1999). Thus, although compared with
consumer ethnocentrism and national identity, the
impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic PJ
and WTB should be relatively modest, we still posit a
positive relationship to these outcome variables.
In summary, the preceding discussion leads to the fol-
lowing hypotheses regarding the relative impact of the
three sociopsychological traits on domestic PJ and
WTB:
H1: National identity has a stronger (positive)
impact than consumer ethnocentrism on
domestic PJ, whereas cosmopolitanism has the
weakest (positive) influence.
H2: National identity has a stronger (positive)
impact than consumer ethnocentrism on the
willingness of consumers to buy domestic
products, whereas cosmopolitanism has the
weakest (positive) influence.
Foreign PJ and WTB
Regarding the relative impact of the three sociopsycho-
logical constructs on foreign PJ and WTB, both con-
sumer ethnocentrism and cosmopolitanism also involve

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 31

a relationship to out-groups, which is negative in the
case of consumer ethnocentrism and positive in the case
of consumer cosmopolitanism. In contrast, national
identity is a “pure” pro-in-group construct and there-
fore should exert a weaker effect (if any) on foreign
product purchases.
Prior research concludes that consumer ethnocentrism
“appears to be more capable of explaining consumers’
(positive) bias toward home products ... rather than
(negative) bias against foreign products from specific
countries” (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004, p.
91). In contrast, the very nature of the consumer cos-
mopolitanism construct is characterized by an openness
to foreign countries and their products (Riefler and Dia-
mantopoulos 2009), as reflected in an increased WTB
the latter (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012).
Therefore, we expect the positive bias due to cosmopoli-
tanism to outweigh any negative bias due to ethnocen-
tric tendencies. Thus, consumer cosmopolitism should
have a stronger impact on foreign PJ and WTB than
consumer ethnocentrism.
Regarding the influence of national identity on foreign
PJ and WTB, previous research assumes (but does not
empirically establish) a negative relationship (Verlegh
2007). Although social identity theory predicts that in
special instances involving competition or perceived
threat, derogation can occur (Brewer 1979; Duckitt and
Mphuthing 1998), in the absence of such factors, out-
groups such as foreign countries are likely to be “viewed
with indifference, sympathy, even admiration, as long as
inter-group distinctiveness is maintained” (Brewer
1999, p. 434). Empirical research has shown support for
this argument. For example, in a study on black African
students’ ethnic group identification and attitudes
toward English whites, Afrikaans whites, and whites in
general, black African identification was only negatively
related to attitudes toward Afrikaans whites but not
toward whites in general (Duckitt and Mphuthing
1998). Thus, both the tenets of social identity theory
and the absence of empirical findings pointing to the
contrary lead us to expect that national identity will
have no significant impact on either foreign PJ or WTB.
In summary, we postulate the following hypotheses
regarding the relative impact of the three sociopsycho-
logical traits on foreign PJ and WTB:
H3: Cosmopolitanism has a stronger (positive)
impact than consumer ethnocentrism (nega-
tive) on foreign PJ, whereas national identity
has no influence.
32 Journal of International Marketing
H4: Cosmopolitanism has a stronger (positive)
impact than consumer ethnocentrism (nega-
tive) on the willingness of consumers to buy
foreign products, whereas national identity
has no influence.
As Figure 1 shows, consistent with prior research (e.g.,
Josiassen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998;
Riefler and Diamantopoulos 2009), our model contains
a link between PJ and WTB. It also includes country
attitudes, respondent age, and income as control
variables.1
STUDY 1
Data Collection
We collected data for Study 1 in Austria, which also
represents the home country in our model. In terms of
gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, Austria is
similar to the countries typically chosen in similar sur-
vey research (i.e., the United States, the United King-
dom, Canada, Japan, and Germany). It has several bor-
dering countries, and thus its citizens have likely been
directly exposed to other countries, their people, and
their products. At the time of data collection, imports
(goods and services) accounted for approximately 55%
of its GDP (Statistics Austria 2013). Moreover, Austria
ranks among the top three countries in the KOF index
of globalization, which takes into account economic,
social, and political aspects of globalization (Dreher,
Gaston, and Martens 2008). Overall, this evidence indi-
cates that this country is significantly intertwined with
other countries.
Following intensive discussions with several experts in
country-of-origin research, we chose Italy as the foreign
country stimulus. Italy is the second most important
trading partner for Austria and the most preferred
tourism destination (Statistics Austria 2013). Thus, we
assume that Austrian consumers can evaluate Italy and
its products. Regarding Austrian consumers’ general
attitudes toward Italy, a prestudy (N = 200) revealed
that although favorable attitudes prevailed (see also
Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011), neutral and
negative attitudes were also widespread (which avoids
any “restriction-of-range” problems on the country atti-
tudes variable).
For the main survey, we employed a quota sample,
which was nationally representative of the Austrian
population with respect to gender and age. Data were
professionally collected by a major international
research agency that maintains representative online
panels in several countries around the world. To avoid
order effects, we randomized the order in which the
stimulus countries (i.e., Austria and Italy) were pre-
sented to respondents. In total, 422 completed question-
naires were returned, 411 of which were fully usable.
Table 2 (left panel) summarizes the demographic profile
of the sample with respect to gender, age, location (urban
or rural), and median disposable income and compares
them with census statistics. Respondents were slightly
more educated (80% graduated from high school, com-
pared with 70% in the overall population), and the sam-
ple was broadly consistent with census figures in terms of
employment (approximately two-thirds of respondents
were employed, and 20% were retired), with a slight
overrepresentation of unemployed people (8% com-
pared with 4% of the working population) and students
(7% compared with 5% of the overall population).
Construct Measurement
We used previously validated scales to measure our con-
structs. Whenever a scale was developed in several lan-
guages (e.g., in the case of the CETSCALE or the C-
COSMO scale), we contacted the respective authors and
used the original German version in the questionnaire.
For the rest, to ensure translation equivalence, a bilin-
gual translator first translated the English version of the
scale into German and then a second bilingual translator
independently retranslated it into English (Craig and
Douglas 2005). The two translators subsequently recon-
ciled any differences. We then pretested the translated
instrument with 20 consumers using the protocol
approach (Reynolds and Diamantopoulos 1998) to

Table 2. Demographic Profiles of Samples

Austrian Sample (Study 1) Slovenian Sample (Study 2)

Census Census
N Percentage Percentagea N Percentage Percentageb

Gender
Male 202 49.1 49.7 205 50.6 51.5
Female 209 50.9 50.3 200 49.4 48.5
Total (population 18–70 years) 411 100 100 405 100 100
Age
18–29 years 94 22.9 21.5 114 28.1 23.8
30–39 years 85 20.7 21.2 104 25.7 24.9
40–49 years 88 21.4 23.3 102 25.2 24.3
50–59 years 95 23.1 17.8 85 21.0 24.5
60–70 years 49 11.9 16.2
Total (population 18–70 years) 411 100 100 405 100 100
Locationc
Urban 271 65.9 66 235 58.0 50
Rural 140 34.1 34 170 42.0 50
Total (population 18–70 years) 411 100 100 405 100 100
Incomed
Median disposable income (in €) 18,882 21,807 13,875 12,122

aSource: Statistics Austria 2013.

bSource: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia 2013.
cSource: United Nations 2014.
dSource: Eurostat 2014.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 33

ensure that all items were comprehensible and no diffi-
culties in answering occurred.
We further pretested the questionnaire on a second sam-
ple of 83 university students to gain initial insights into
the psychometric properties of the measurement items.
On average, respondents took 15 minutes to fill out the
questionnaire, which lies within the range of recom-
mended questionnaire length (Hinkin 1995; Podsakoff
et al. 2003). All individual items were screened in terms
of means, actual ranges, variances, and missing values
(DeVellis 2003) and showed desirable qualities (i.e.,
means were close to the center of the theoretical range,
variances were relatively high, and no item had exces-
sive missing values). Moreover, all internal consistency
estimates of the scales capturing the constructs of inter-
est were acceptable (alpha values well exceeded .70).
The Appendix lists the items used to measure each con-
struct in our model along with relevant psychometric
information.
Sociopsychological Constructs. According to Blank and
Schmidt (2003, p. 296), there is “little disagreement on
the measurement of national identity.” Thus, similar to
Verlegh (2007), we used a four-item measure for
national identity with items drawn from Doosje, Elle-
mers, and Spears (1995) and Mlicki and Ellemers
(1996). We measured consumer ethnocentrism with the
five-item version of the CETSCALE, which was exten-
sively validated in a survey of more than 3,000 con-
sumers across the European Union (Steenkamp, Ter
Hofstede, and Wedel 1999; Verlegh 2007). We opera-
tionalized consumer cosmopolitanism using the three-
dimensional C-COSMO measure initially proposed by
Diamantopoulos, Riefler, and Egger (2007) and Riefler
and Diamantopoulos (2009) and subsequently refined
and validated by Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
(2012). Specifically, we measured open-mindedness
with four items (e.g., “I like to learn about other cul-
tures,” “I like having the opportunity to meet people
from many different countries”), diversity appreciation
with three items (e.g., “Having access to products com-
ing from many different countries is valuable to me,”
“The availability of foreign products in the domestic
market provides valuable diversity”), and consumption
transcending borders with four items (e.g., “I like read-
ing foreign newspapers and magazines to inform myself
what is happening around the world,” “I like spending
my holidays in foreign countries”). Respondents rated
the items for all three sociopsychological constructs on
a Likert-type format ranging from 1 (“strongly dis-
agree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”). Because consumer cos-
34 Journal of International Marketing
mopolitanism was the only multidimensional construct
in our study, we first assessed its psychometric proper-
ties by specifying a higher second-order factor with
three first-order dimensions (i.e., open-mindedness,
diversity appreciation, and consumption transcending
borders; see Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
2012). This operationalization showed acceptable
measurement properties (c2 = 168.89, d.f. = 41; root
mean square error of approximation = .08; nonnormed
fit index = .96; comparative fit index = .97); subse-
quently, we calculated an average score for each dimen-
sion and then used these scores as observed variables
(indicators) in the structural equation modeling (SEM)
analysis (for a similar approach, see Steenkamp, Batra,
and Alden 2003).
Country Attitudes. Ajzen (2001, p. 28) states that “there
is general agreement that attitude represents a summary
evaluation of a psychological object captured in such
attribute dimensions such as good-bad, harmful-
beneficial, pleasant-unpleasant, likable-dislikable.”
Therefore, we measured country attitudes with five
items from Schmitt, Pan, and Tavassoli (1994) rated on
a nine-point semantic differential format.
PJ. We measured PJ with Roth and Romeo’s (1992)
well-established scale that captures consumers’ evalua-
tions of products from a specific country in terms of
innovativeness, design, prestige, and workmanship. This
scale has been widely used in previous research (e.g.,
Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopoulos, and Odenkotte
2012; Okechuku and Onyemah 1999; Pappu, Quester,
and Cooksey 2007). Respondents rated the four items
on a nine-point semantic-differential format.
WTB. We measured consumers’ WTB products from the
stimulus countries with three items from Putrevu and
Lord (1994) rated on a seven-point scale. Importantly,
previous research has shown that this measure corre-
lates well with actual product ownership (see Josiassen
2011).
Measurement Model
We performed SEM using LISREL 8.80 to evaluate the
measurement properties of the operationalizations of
our focal constructs and to test the research hypotheses.
We investigated the measurement models for the
consumer-specific (i.e., consumer ethnocentrism,
national identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism) and
country-specific (i.e., country attitudes, PJ, and WTB)
constructs separately and together. All measurement
models showed acceptable fit, requiring no adjustments
in their original specification (see the Appendix). Next,
we calculated composite reliabilities, all of which were
well above the recommended threshold value of .60
(Bagozzi and Yi 1988); average variance extracted
(AVE) values were at or above .50. We assessed discrimi-
nant validity among country attitudes, PJ, WTB, and
sociopsychological traits by comparing the shared con-
struct variances with the respective AVEs (Fornell and
Larcker 1981). All AVEs exceeded the squared correla-
tions between the constructs, providing support for dis-
criminant validity. Table 3 provides descriptive statistics
for the constructs in our study.
Consumer ethnocentrism is positively but moderately
correlated with national identity (r = .31, p < .05),
which is consistent with our expectations because both
constructs share a pro-in-group orientation. Also as we
expected, consumer cosmopolitanism is negatively cor-
related with consumer ethnocentrism (r = –.38, p < .05)
because the former construct values out-groups,
whereas the latter devalues them. Consumer cosmopoli-

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, AVEs, and Correlations Among Constructs

Study 1: Austrian Sample (N = 411)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Consumer ethnocentrism .64 .095 .141 .025 .015 .057 .022 .047 .122
2. National identity .308* .77 .005 .223 .004 .134 .008 .113 .006
3. Consumer cosmopolitanism –.376* –.069 .54 .002 .051 .002 .109 .001 .122
4. Country attitudes (home) .158* .473* –.049 .72 .070 .115 .025 .078 .000
5. Country attitudes (foreign) –.124* .061 .225* .264* .82 .008 .219 .007 .155
6. PJ (home) .238* .366* .045 .340* .090 .54 .147 .105 .000
7. PJ (foreign) –.150* .089 .330* .157* .468* .384* .51 .023 .223
8. WTB (home) .217* .337* .027 .279* .085 .323* .152* .61 .018
9. WTB (foreign) –.349* –.079 .349* –.007 .394* –.002 .472* .133* .76
M 4.16 6.24 5.47 7.83 6.61 7.53 6.84 6.67 5.16
SD 1.63 1.19 1.00 1.48 1.84 1.16 1.33 .75 1.60

Study 2: Slovenian Sample (N = 405)

Constructs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Consumer ethnocentrism .66 .068 .149 .009 .008 .020 .007 .031 .028
2. National identity .260* .71 .014 .191 .004 .086 .005 .069 .004
3. Consumer cosmopolitanism –.385* –.117* .50 .002 .018 .001 .015 .001 .056
4. Country attitudes (home) .092 .437* .043 .68 .134 .094 .038 .055 .000
5. Country attitudes (foreign) –.088 .063 .134* .366* .80 .047 .112 .016 .065
6. PJ (home) .143* .294* .028 .307* .216* .57 .225 .084 .004
7. PJ (foreign) –.084 .073 .121* .195* .334* .474* .50 .054 .136
8. WTB (home) .176* .263* –.027 .235* .126* .289* .232* .66 .026
9. WTB (foreign) –.167* –.064 .236* .000 .255* .066 .369* .162* .77
M 3.50 6.09 5.76 7.30 5.44 5.90 6.22 6.07 4.25
SD 1.65 1.28 .86 1.58 1.70 1.44 1.40 1.17 1.69

*p < .05 or better.

Notes: Correlations are below the diagonal, AVE is on the main diagonal (bold text), and squared multiple correlations are above the diagonal.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 35

tanism has a nonsignificant correlation with national
identity (r = –.07, p > .10), indicating that the two con-
structs are conceptually orthogonal in nature (with the
first being pro-out-group and the second being pro-in-
group). The low shared variances among the three
sociopsychological traits serve to further emphasize
their distinctive in- and out-group orientations, as previ-
ously discussed.
Common Method Variance Assessment
Because all data are self-reported and collected using a
cross-sectional research design, common method vari-
ance (CMV) may confound the true relationships
among the theoretical constructs of interest (Chang,
Witteloostuijn, and Eden 2010). Consequently, we fol-
lowed both ex ante (procedural) and ex post (statistical)
remedies to control for CMV. Regarding procedural
remedies, as Podsakoff et al. (2003) suggest, we adopted
different response formats and a counterbalancing ques-
tion order. For example, we asked respondents about
their WTB products before asking for their PJ to avoid
priming effects. Regarding statistical remedies, in the
pretest, we also included a ten-item measure for social
desirability taken from Netemeyer, Burton, and Lichten-
stein (1995) and originally developed by Crowne and
Marlowe (1960). All correlations between the social
desirability scale and our construct measures were not
significant. In addition, in the main study, we employed
Lindell and Whitney’s (2001) marker variable assess-
ment technique to assess CMV using “Germany is a
country of my dreams” (measured on a seven-point
scale) as the marker variable. We selected this item
because it was conceptually unrelated to both our
dependent and predictor variables. All correlation coef-
ficients that were significant on a bivariate basis
remained significant after we partialed out the marker
variable. In light of these analyses, we conclude that
CMV does not seem to pose a major threat in our study.
Structural Model
Consistent with our research hypotheses, we estimated a
model containing all paths from our sociopsychological
constructs to domestic and foreign PJ and WTB. As pre-
viously noted, we also included country attitudes and
consumer demographics (age and income) as control
variables in the model (Table 4).
We tested the hypothesized relationships through model
comparison. For testing the relative strength of path
coefficients, we estimated several models in which we
36 Journal of International Marketing
set a specific path coefficient to 0. Because these con-
straints resulted in nonnested models, chi-square differ-
ence tests for model comparison could not be not
applied (Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2000). Instead,
we used the expected cross-validation index, Akaike
information criterion, consistent Akaike information
criterion, and variance explained as comparison criteria
(see Table 5).
Domestic PJ and WTB (H1 and H2). In line with our
expectations, national identity directly (and positively)
influenced domestic PJ (b = .25, t = 2.89, p < .001) and
WTB domestic products (b = .19, t = 1.72, p < .05).
Consumer ethnocentrism significantly and positively
affected both domestic PJ (b = .24, t = 3.06, p < .001)
and WTB domestic products (b = .13, t = 1.68, p < .05).
Finally, consumer cosmopolitanism positively influ-
enced domestic PJ (b = .19, t = 2.70, p < .01) but not
WTB domestic products (b = .09, t = .89, p > .05).
For a formal test of H1 and H2, we compared models
with a free estimation of the paths between national
identity, consumer ethnocentrism, and consumer cos-
mopolitanism and PJ or WTB with models in which we
set each of these paths (one at a time) to 0. For PJ, as
expected, we observed the highest deterioration in model
fit for the model when we set the path from national
identity to 0 and all other paths were freely estimated.
Furthermore, we observed the lowest deterioration in
model fit for the model with the path from consumer
cosmopolitanism set to 0. Therefore, H1 receives full
support; national identity is a stronger predictor of
domestic PJ than consumer ethnocentrism, and both
have a stronger impact than consumer cosmopolitanism.
For WTB domestic products, the model with national
identity as the predictor outperformed the model with
consumer ethnocentrism, and both were better predic-
tors than consumer cosmopolitanism (which, as we
noted previously, did not significantly influence WTB);
these results provide full support for H2.
Foreign PJ and WTB (H3 and H4). Consumer cos-
mopolitanism had a positive, significant impact on for-
eign PJ (b = .30, t = 4.39, p < .001) but not on con-
sumers’ WTB foreign products (b = .09, t = 1.32, p >
.05). For consumer ethnocentrism, no significant impact
on foreign PJ emerged (b = –.03, t = –0.41, p > .05),
while its impact on WTB foreign products was negative
and significant (b = –.24, t = –5.44, p < .001). Finally,
national identity did not significantly affect consumers’
WTB foreign products (b = –.05, t = –.99, p > .05) but
positively affected foreign PJ (b = .13, t = 2.16, p < .05).
Table 4. Study 1 Results: SEM

Domestic (Austrian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Hypothesized Paths Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients

Consumer Ethnocentrism
CET Æ PJ .17** .24** –.02 –.03
CET Æ WTB .06* .13* –.23** –.24**
National Identity
NATID Æ PJ .23** .25** .13* .13*
NATID Æ WTB .11* .19* –.07 –.05
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
COSMO Æ PJ .22** .19** .42** .30**
COSMO Æ WTB .07 .09 .15 .09
Control Variables
Country attitudes Æ PJ .24** .22** .26** .40**
Country attitudes Æ WTB .07 .10 .14** .17**
PJ Æ WTB .17** .27** .48** .39**
Age Æ PJ .05 .02 .29* .08*
Age Æ WTB –.02 –.01 –.14 –.03
Income Æ PJ –.04 –.07 –.10** –.15**
Income Æ WTB –.01 –.04 .03 .05
Model Fit c2 = 892.833 (p = .0), d.f. 333; RMSEA = .04; NFI = .96; SRMR = .04

*p < .05.
**p < .001.
Notes: RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, NFI = normed fit index, SRMR = standardized root mean square residual.

For a formal test of H3 and H4, we again compared the
models with free estimation of the paths between con-
sumer cosmopolitanism, consumer ethnocentrism, or
national identity and PJ or WTB with a model in which
the relevant path was set to 0 (see Table 5). For foreign
PJ, in line with H3, the model in which cosmopolitanism
was freely estimated outperformed the models with con-
sumer ethnocentrism and national identity across all cri-
teria. However, because national identity also had a
(unexpected) positive impact on foreign PJ, H3 receives
only partial support. For WTB foreign products, contrary
to our expectations, consumer ethnocentrism outper-
formed cosmopolitanism, whereas, as we expected,
national identity showed no significant impact. There-
fore, H4 receives support, but only with respect to
national identity; the expected order of influence between
cosmopolitanism and ethnocentrism receives no support.
The results in Tables 4 and 5 also provide support for
the expected (positive) link between PJ and WTB and
highlight the importance of controlling for country atti-
tudes. These attitudes have a substantial (positive)
impact on both outcome variables, beyond those of the
three sociopsychological traits.
Discussion
In Study 1, we aimed to disentangle the influence of con-
sumer ethnocentrism from that of national identity and
consumer cosmopolitanism while controlling for coun-
try attitudes. Both national identity and consumer eth-
nocentrism influence domestic PJ and WTB domestic
products, but the impact of national identity was
stronger than that of ethnocentrism. National identity
also had a positive influence on foreign PJ. Though per-

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 37

Table 5. Study 1 Results: Comparison Criteria

R2 PJ Home R2 WTB Home R2 PJ Foreign R2 WTB Foreign d.f. ECVI AIC CAIC

Conceptual model .264 .244 .364 .410 333 2.003 821.344 1,333.240
Home Country PJ
CET set to 0 .222 .239 .364 .415 334 2.024 829.850 1,336.728
NATID set to 0 .230 .235 .358 .412 334 2.030 832.406 1,339.284
COSMO set to 0 .234 .241 .337 .405 334 2.014 825.604 1,332.482
Home WTB
CET set to 0 .267 .236 .364 .416 334 2.004 821.841 1,328.719
NATID set to 0 .267 .228 .363 .412 334 2.012 824.994 1,331.872
COSMO set to 0 .266 .239 .364 .407 334 1.997 818.911 1,325.789
Foreign PJ
CET set to 0 .267 .244 .365 .409 334 1.999 819.671 1,326.549
NATID set to 0 .246 .239 .352 .411 334 2.011 824.324 1,331.202
COSMO set to 0 .244 .242 .295 .402 334 2.038 835.511 1,342.389
Foreign WTB
CET set to 0 .261 .256 .364 .381 334 2.030 832.149 1,339.027
NATID set to 0 .264 .248 .363 .408 334 2.001 820.495 1,327.373
COSMO set to 0 .266 .242 .369 .409 334 2.003 821.104 1,327.981

Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, NATID = national identity, COSMO = consumer cosmopolitanism, ECVI = expected cross-validation index, AIC = Akaike
information criterion, CAIC = consistent Akaike information criterion.

haps somewhat surprising, this finding is fully in line STUDY 2

with previous findings in the social psychology literature
(e.g., Brewer 1979; Duckitt and Mphuthing 1998),
showing that national identity is a pro-in-group but not
anti-out-group construct.
Regarding consumer cosmopolitanism, although we
found that it had the expected positive influence on for-
eign PJ, it also had a positive impact on domestic PJ.
Because prior empirical evidence on the impact of con-
sumer cosmopolitanism on domestic buying behavior is
practically nonexistent, it is difficult to know whether
this finding is idiosyncratic to the present sample or
more broadly applicable; the same applies to the non-
significant impact of cosmopolitanism on WTB foreign
products, which contradicts prior research (e.g., Riefler,
Diamantopoulos and Siguaw 2012). To shed light on
these issues and to investigate the extent to which the
patterns of results pertaining to the influence of con-
sumer ethnocentrism and national identity are generali-
zable, we conducted a second study to test our research
model in a different setting.
Data Collection and Construct Measurement
We conducted Study 2 in Slovenia, a country that pro-
vides a good comparison with Austria. Both are neigh-
boring countries of comparable size, are members of
the European Union, and share a portion of their his-
tory (both belonged to the Austro-Hungarian empire).
However, they are divided by language (Slovenian vs.
German), political legacy (Slovenia was part of socialist
Yugoslavia), and economic development (GDP per
capita in purchasing power parity terms for 2014 was
82 for Slovenia and 128 for Austria, EU-28 = 100;
Eurostat 2014). We retained Italy as the foreign coun-
try stimulus because it is a neighboring country of
Slovenia and is its second-largest export and import
partner (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia
2013). Thus, as is the case for Study 1, we can confi-
dently assume that respondents are sufficiently familiar
with Italy and its products. Furthermore, as in Study 1,
a pretest revealed that Slovenians held positive, neutral,
and negative attitudes toward Italy, thus again avoiding

38 Journal of International Marketing

any restriction-of-range problems on the country atti-
tudes variable.
We used the same questionnaire and translation tech-
niques as in Study 1 and had the questionnaire adminis-
tered to a nationally representative Slovenian sample by
the same global market research agency as in Study 1,
resulting in 405 usable responses. The data for Study 2
were collected about nine months after Study 1. Table 2
(right panel) shows the distribution of the sample in
terms of gender, age, location (urban or rural), and
median disposable income, as well as corresponding
census statistics.
As in Study 1, we used Lindell and Whitney ’s (2001)
marker variable technique to assess CMV and found no
evidence of a threat of CMV in Study 2. Estimation of
the measurement models revealed that all constructs had
acceptable psychometric properties, requiring no adjust-
ment in their initial specifications (see the Appendix and
Table 3). We also tested for measurement invariance
between Austria and Slovenia (using multigroup confir-
matory factor analysis with increasingly restrictive
forms of invariance; see Steenkamp and Baumgartner
1998) because Italy was a common stimulus country in
both studies. Configural and full metric invariance
could be established for all study constructs except con-
sumer cosmopolitanism, for which the chi-square differ-
ence test for the metric and configural invariance models
became nonsignificant only when we estimated open-
mindedness separately for each country (thus revealing
partial metric invariance).
Structural Model
Having established the soundness of our measures in the
Slovenian sample, we estimated a structural model iden-
tical to the one used in Study 1 and also used the same
nonnested model tests to test our hypotheses. In line with
Study 1, the findings (see Tables 6 and 7) provide full
support for H1, H2, and H4 for which partial support
was found in Study 1 (as consumer cosmopolitanism
positively affects WTB foreign products). The findings
also confirm the positive link between PJ and WTB and,
similar to Study 1, show that country attitudes are addi-
tional predictors of these outcomes. However, unlike
Study 1, we found no support for H3, as neither con-
sumer cosmopolitanism nor consumer ethnocentrism sig-
nificantly influenced foreign PJ.
Note that in Study 2 we again observed the positive
impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic PJ as
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 39
in Study 1. This suggests that a cosmopolitan orienta-
tion also has implications for domestic products, an
issue we address subsequently.
IDENTIFICATION OF CONSUMER SEGMENTS
Cluster Analysis
Having tested our research model in two independent
studies, we next aimed to identify distinct groups of
consumers (regardless of their location) on the basis of
their responses on consumer ethnocentrism, national
identity, and consumer cosmopolitanism. Mean scores
for each of the 816 respondents (combined samples in
Studies 1 and 2) on these traits provided the input for a
two-step clustering procedure (Punj and Stewart 1983).
In the first step, we used Ward’s hierarchical clustering
with squared Euclidean distance to identify a prelimi-
nary set of cluster solutions as the basis for determining
the appropriate number of clusters; this method can
generate homogeneous clusters of relatively equal size
(Hair et al. 2010). We determined the number of clusters
using the elbow criterion and the Ward criterion func-
tion, which showed a large decrease in the relevant coef-
ficient when moving from a three- to a four-cluster solu-
tion. Thus, a three-cluster solution seemed most
appropriate for our data. In the second step, we used a
nonhierarchical, k-means clustering procedure (Mac-
Queen 1967) to develop a three-cluster solution. The
group centroids computed in the hierarchical procedure
were specified as initial clusters for the k-means cluster-
ing. Following the same procedure, we conducted addi-
tional cluster analyses for each country separately. The
results consistently revealed three clusters mirroring
those derived using the combined sample. Table 8 sum-
marizes the empirical segments resulting from the clus-
ter analysis.
Pure Cosmopolitans (15%). Consumers in the pure cos-
mopolitan cluster display a high level of cosmopoli-
tanism, while exhibiting moderate to low attachment to
their home country (in terms of both national identity
and consumer ethnocentrism). In terms of size, this seg-
ment is the smallest, comparable in size to the “transna-
tional” segment (15%) of Cleveland, Papadopoulos,
and Laroche (2011), who use ethnic identity and cos-
mopolitanism as clustering variables, but smaller than
the “pure cosmopolitan” segment (27%) of Riefler, Dia-
mantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012), which groups con-
sumers according to their levels of cosmopolitanism and
localism. In terms of composition, this cluster contains
practically equal proportions of Austrian and Slovenian
Table 6. Study 2 Results: SEM

Domestic ( Slovenian) Products Foreign (Italian) Products

Unstandardized Standardized Unstandardized Standardized
Hypothesized Paths Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients Path Coefficients

Consumer Ethnocentrism
CET Æ PJ .12* .15* –.02 –.03
CET Æ WTB .08* .11* –.02 –.02
National Identity
NATID Æ PJ .26*** .25*** .10 .11
NATID Æ WTB .13* .14* –.10 –.07
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
COSMO Æ PJ .22* .12* .21 .13
COSMO Æ WTB .06 .04 .46*** .20***
Control Variables
Country attitudes Æ PJ .22** .19** .18*** .26***
Country attitudes Æ WTB .09 .10 .13** .13**
PJ Æ WTB .20*** .24*** .47*** .32***
Age Æ PJ –.36* –.09* –.11 –.03
Age Æ WTB –.01 –.00 –.56* –.11*
Income Æ PJ .00 .01 .03 .06
Income Æ WTB .02 .05 .06* .08*
Model Fit c2 = 653.101 (p = .0), d.f. 333; RMSEA = .04; NFI = .95; SRMR = .05

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, NATID = national identity, COSMO = consumer cosmopolitanism, ECVI = expected cross-validation index, AIC = Akaike
information criterion, CAIC = consistent Akaike information criterion.

consumers, which suggests that it could be treated as a
true “intermarket” (i.e., global) segment.
National Cosmopolitans (45%). By far, the largest seg-
ment comprises national cosmopolitans. These con-
sumers are cosmopolitan but, at the same time, are
strongly attached to their home country, as reflected in
their high national identity scores. However, consumers
in this segment are not ethnocentric, which emphasizes
the importance of distinguishing between national iden-
tity and consumer ethnocentrism as alternative drivers
of home country bias for successfully targeting this seg-
ment. This segment is likely to be receptive to “buy-
domestic” campaigns and to local consumer culture
positioning of global brands (Alden, Steenkamp, and
Batra 2006), but it is also open to foreign products. It is
comparable in size to the “glocal” segment (45%) of
Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011) but
much larger than the “local cosmopolitan” segment
(27%) of Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012).
Domestically Oriented Consumers (40%). The second-
largest segment consists of domestically oriented con-
sumers. People in this segment score higher on national
identity and consumer ethnocentrism and lower on cos-
mopolitanism than the other two groups. In terms of size,
this segment is comparable to the “local” cluster (34%)
of Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011).
Cluster Profiles
As Table 8 shows, the three clusters differ significantly
in terms of age (F(2, 813) = 9.913, p < .001). Pairwise
comparisons revealed that pure cosmopolitans were the

40 Journal of International Marketing

Table 7. Study 2 Results: Comparison Criteria

R2 PJ Home R2 WTB Home R2 PJ Foreign R2 WTB Foreign d.f. ECVI AIC CAIC

Conceptual model .175 .166 .115 .238 333 1.893 764.875 1,275.272
Home Country PJ
CET set to 0 .159 .163 .119 .241 334 1.899 767.059 1,272.452
NATID set to 0 .132 .157 .110 .242 334 1.924 777.160 1,282.552
COSMO set to 0 .163 .165 .106 .237 334 1.894 765.340 1,270.732
Home WTB
CET set to 0 .177 .160 .115 .238 334 1.892 764.552 1,269.944
NATID set to 0 .178 .154 .115 .241 334 1.899 767.095 1,272.488
COSMO set to 0 .176 .165 .115 .237 334 1.889 763.089 1,268.482
Foreign PJ
CET set to 0 .178 .166 .116 .238 334 1.889 763.158 1,268.551
NATID set to 0 .157 .162 .105 .240 334 1.896 765.927 1,271.320
COSMO set to 0 .168 .165 .103 .233 334 1.896 765.904 1,271.296
Foreign WTB
CET set to 0 .175 .166 .115 .239 334 1.889 763.281 1,268.674
NATID set to 0 .175 .170 .114 .234 334 1.891 763.854 1,269.247
COSMO set to 0 .178 .164 .119 .212 334 1.909 771.156 1,276.548

Notes: CET = consumer ethnocentrism, NATID = national identity, COSMO = consumer cosmopolitanism, ECVI = expected cross-validation index, AIC = Akaike
information criterion, CAIC = consistent Akaike information criterion.

youngest segment (see also Riefler, Diamantopoulos,
and Siguaw 2012). Chi-square tests revealed that the
three clusters did not significantly differ in income (F(2,
813) = .464, p > .05), gender (c2(2) = .434, p > .05 ), or
urban/rural location (c2(2) = 6.955, p > .05). However,
from a within-cluster perspective, it is important to note
that pure cosmopolitans have the highest proportion of
consumers living in urban locations, whereas domesti-
cally oriented consumers have the largest proportion of
consumers living in rural locations. The results further
show that the Austrian sample has a larger percentage
of domestically oriented consumers, whereas the Sloven-
ian sample has a larger percentage of national cos-
mopolitans. This finding could underlie the (negative)
attitude of Austrians toward foreigners and immigration
(Guibernau 2007), whereas Slovenia, as a former East-
ern Bloc country, seems to be more open, especially
toward people and products from the West.
We subsequently profiled the derived segments on a
series of individual and consumption-related character-
istics. Specifically, in addition to the measures for PJ and
WTB used in our research model, respondents also rated
(on a seven-point scale) the country images of the home
and foreign countries (using the five-item scale of Para-
meswaran and Pisharodi [1994]), their (foreign) country
knowledge (two items taken from Beatty and Talpade
[1994]; e.g., “I have a lot of experience with [coun-
try]”), and a series of consumption-related variables,
such as their past travel behavior (“I travel to Italy:
never/very often”), their investment intentions (two
items taken from Oberecker and Diamantopoulos
(2011; e.g., “I would like to do business with companies
from [country]”), and their work-abroad intentions (“I
[would] like to work in this [country]”).
We found significant differences (at p < .05 or better)
between the three clusters for all these variables (Table 8).
In line with expectations, domestically oriented con-
sumers clearly regard their own country in a better light
than the other clusters, as reflected in the highest country
image scores, the most favorable domestic PJ, and the
greatest WTB domestic products. This group is also least
likely to visit or work in a foreign country and displays

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 41

Table 8. Cluster Description

Domestically National
Pure Cosmopolitans Oriented Consumers Cosmopolitans Test Statistic
M SD M SD M SD F (2, 813) Significance

n (sample %) 120 (15%) 324 (40%) 372 (45%)

Austrian sample 59 (14%) 197 (48%) 155 (38%)
Slovenian sample 61 (15%) 127 (31%) 217 (54%)
Consumer ethnocentrism 2.72a 1.37 5.34ab 1.13 2.88b 1.08 469.683 .000
National identity 3.72ab 1.17 6.63b .63 6.55a .54 857.541 .000
Consumer cosmopolitanism 5.95a .87 4.91ab .86 6.13b .57 242.349 .000
Income (EUR, net/month) 530.89 807.01 779.74 881.85 893.75 5253.75 .464 .629
Age (years) 35.8ab 12.34 41.78b 12.93 41.07a 13.39 9.913 .000
Gender (% within cluster)
Women 59 (49.1%) 167 (51.5%) 183 (49.2%)
Men 61 (50.9%) 157 (48.5%) 189 (50.8%)
Location (% within cluster)
Urban 86 (71.7%) 188 (58.0%) 232 (62.4%)
Rural 34 (28.3%) 136 (42.0%) 140 (37.6%)
Country knowledge (foreign) 3.73a 1.63 3.26ab 1.51 3.69b 1.55 7.973 .000
Country image (home) 4.60ab 1.05 5.26a 1.06 5.17b .98 18.976 .000
Country image (foreign) 4.47a .99 4.53b 1.10 4.79ab 1.01 7.296 .001
PJ (home) 5.98ab 1.62 7.06ac 1.43 6.67bc 1.52 23.17 .000
PJ (foreign) 6.30a 1.42 6.39b 1.40 6.73ab 1.36 6.953 .001
WTB (home) 5.86ab 1.44 6.56ac .83 6.37bc .97 21.152 .000
WTB (foreign) 4.90a 1.63 4.33ab 1.70 4.98b 1.67 13.891 .000
Work intentions (foreign) 3.40a 1.65 2.98ab 1.49 3.51b 1.65 10.025 .000
Visit intentions (foreign) 4.90 1.29 4.55a 1.47 5.07a 1.29 12.673 .000

Notes: Subscript letters indicate significant differences between clusters at the .05 significance level (Bonferroni post hoc test).

the lowest level of foreign country knowledge. In con-
trast, both the pure cosmopolitans and national cos-
mopolitans are more open to “things foreign,” as
reflected in a greater WTB foreign products and intention
to visit or work abroad. These segments also hold a less
positive home country image and evaluate domestic prod-
ucts less favorably than domestically oriented consumers.
A series of Bonferroni post hoc tests in analysis of vari-
ance revealed that pure cosmopolitans and national cos-
mopolitans do not significantly differ from each other in
a foreign context,2 whereas national cosmopolitans sig-
nificantly differ from domestically oriented consumers in
the home context. For example, in a foreign context, both
pure and national cosmopolitans exhibit a high WTB for-
eign products; in a home context, both national cos-
mopolitans and domestically oriented consumers clearly
prefer domestic products. We find the same patterns for
investment and working abroad intentions.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Theoretical Implications
Since Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) classic research, many
studies have focused on consumer ethnocentrism as a
consumer trait explaining bias in favor of domestic

42 Journal of International Marketing

products and against foreign alternatives. Because the
impact of consumer ethnocentrism on PJ is product- and
country-specific (Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004),
research has suggested alternative drivers for such a bias
but has not yet analyzed their joint influences on both
domestic and foreign PJ and WTB. In line with recent
calls (e.g., Josiassen 2011; Riefler and Diamantopoulos
2009) and drawing on social identity theory, this study
develops and tests a conceptual model that assesses the
relative importance of three sociopsychological traits as
drivers of in-group and out-group bias—namely, con-
sumer ethnocentrism (pro-in-group and anti-out-group),
national identity (pro-in-group), and consumer cos-
mopolitanism (pro-out-group)—while controlling for
other biasing influences in the form of specific country
attitudes.
Our results reveal that all three traits are important pre-
dictors of consumer behavior, although the strength of
their impact on outcomes varies. In a home country con-
text, and in full support of H1 and H2, national identity
outperforms consumer ethnocentrism (and consumer
cosmopolitanism) for both PJ and WTB. These findings
highlight the importance of conceptually distinguishing
these constructs because “attachment to the nation or
state [i.e., national identity] does not necessarily imply
ethnocentrism” (Roudometof 2005, p. 122). In a for-
eign context, consumer cosmopolitanism tends to act as
a countervailing force to ethnocentric tendencies,
although its relative impact on PJ and WTB varies from
study to study, thus offering only partial support for H3
and H4. In Study 1, consumer cosmopolitanism showed
a stronger impact than consumer ethnocentrism on PJ
(with consumer ethnocentrism having no impact at all
on PJ), and in Study 2, it had a stronger effect on WTB
foreign products (with consumer ethnocentrism influ-
encing neither PJ nor WTB). Our cluster analysis, how-
ever, revealed that the Austrian sample is more ethno-
centric than the Slovenian sample, which is more
cosmopolitan. This could be one reason why WTB is
mainly driven by consumer ethnocentrism in the case of
Austria and by consumer cosmopolitanism in the case of
Slovenia. However, additional research on the relevant
boundary conditions is necessary to fully explain these
cross-country variations.
Two particularly noteworthy findings are the observed
positive impacts of national identity on foreign PJ (in
Study 1) and of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic
PJ (in both studies). To our knowledge, this is the first
time such effects have been empirically observed and
raise the intriguing question whether “pure” in- (out-)
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 43
group constructs also influence out- (in-) group behav-
ior. Regarding national identity, Brewer (1999) states
that out-groups such as foreign countries and their
products could be viewed with indifference, sympathy,
or even admiration, as long as the in-group is not threat-
ened. Speculating on the positive link between national
identity and PJ in the case of Italy, this may indicate that
Italy is a long-standing partner of Austria and its prod-
ucts are respected and admired. However, because we
could not replicate this link in Study 2, further research
on the boundary conditions of this effect is necessary,
perhaps using perceived threat (Brewer 1999, Brown
2000) as a potential moderating variable.
Regarding consumer cosmopolitanism, Cannon and
Yaprak (2012, p. 28) show that “just as one’s family and
immediate social group needs, norms, and values can
take precedence over broader cultural norms, so local
norms can take precedence over cosmopolitan norms in
situations where this seems appropriate.” Thus, though
not ethnocentric, cosmopolitan consumers can feel posi-
tively attached to their home country as long as this
attachment takes a critical stance (Cannon and Yaprak
2012; Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012). For
cosmopolitan consumers, “negation of ethnocentrism
does not mean that they are not good patriots”
(Roudometof 2005, p. 122). This notion is also empiri-
cally reflected in our cluster analysis results, which show
that the national cosmopolitan segment scores high on
both consumer cosmopolitanism and national identity
but low on consumer ethnocentrism (see Table 8). At the
same time, by definition, cosmopolitan consumers have
(and welcome) exposure to different countries and their
products and therefore are likely more “informed” or
“sophisticated” than noncosmopolitans. Thus, the posi-
tive link between cosmopolitanism and domestic PJ may
simply reflect a more “objective” judgment of cosmo-
politan consumers that domestic products are indeed
good products.
With regard to the direct versus indirect (via PJ) impact
of consumer cosmopolitanism on domestic versus for-
eign product preferences, our study advances under-
standing of this construct in several ways. Specifically,
previous research has not clarified whether consumer
cosmopolitanism should have an impact on PJ (Riefler
and Diamantopoulos 2009), independent of whether
such judgments refer to domestic or foreign products. In
a correlational study (n = 136 students), Riefler and
Diamantopoulos (2009) link consumer cosmopoli-
tanism to (domestic) PJ and (foreign) WTB and find a
relationship only with WTB. They conclude that con-
sumer cosmopolitanism might not influence consumers’
PJ at all. In our study, we tested the impact of consumer
cosmopolitanism on PJ and WTB for the first time in a
nomological network that also considered other sources
of in-group and out-group bias using representative
samples from two countries. Overall, our results show
that consumer cosmopolitanism influences PJ in three of
four cases analyzed. Thus, similar to other sociopsycho-
logical traits of consumers (including the ones studied in
this research), consumer cosmopolitanism does indeed
influence consumers’ evaluations of products.
Another question is how consumer cosmopolitanism
influences consumers’ WTB. While in a home country
setting, this relationship seems to be fully mediated
through PJ, we find different results for Study 1 and
Study 2 with respect to the direct versus indirect impact
of consumer cosmopolitanism on WTB through PJ in a
foreign setting. Prior research (listed in Table 1) has not
tested the mediational role of PJ on the relationship
between consumer cosmopolitanism and WTB. Further-
more, Riefler and colleagues (Riefler and Diamantopou-
los 2009; Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
only test the impact of consumer cosmopolitanism on
consumers’ willingness to purchase foreign products in
general (with no indication of a specific origin), whereas
Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos (2009) mainly
focus on global brands. Our results show full mediation
through foreign PJ in the Austrian sample but only a
direct impact (and, thus, no mediation) in the Slovenian
sample. Therefore, similar to consumer ethnocentrism,
whose impact on PJ and WTB varies from study to study
(Balabanis and Diamantopoulos 2004), our findings sug-
gest that the relevant effects might be context specific.
Future studies should further analyze the mediational
role of PJ on WTB using more stimuli countries and
product categories to better explain such differences.
Our cluster analysis partly confirms and further extends
previous studies aiming to identify cross-national con-
sumer segments. Whereas previous research has often
segmented consumers on the basis of their global versus
local identities (e.g., Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
Laroche 2011; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008,
2012; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012)—that is,
their belief in global (local) citizenship through the con-
sumption of global (local) brands (e.g., Steenkamp,
Batra, and Alden 2003)—our study portrays them
through three sociopsychological traits that affect their
treatment of in-groups (i.e., home country) versus out-
groups (i.e., foreign countries in general). In this respect,
the focus on foreign, as opposed to global, is important
44 Journal of International Marketing
because extant research shows that consumers evaluate
brands labeled as foreign versus global differently
(Nijssen and Douglas 2011). The three segments (pure
cosmopolitans, national cosmopolitans, and domesti-
cally oriented consumers) derived from our cluster
analysis differ substantially from one another in terms
of both demographics and consumption-related charac-
teristics and complement our SEM results. In particular,
national identity (consumer cosmopolitanism) charac-
terizes two groups of consumers: one that is only pro-in-
group (pro-out-group) and one that is both. This finding
may explain why we found a positive link from national
identity to foreign PJ and why consumer cosmopoli-
tanism also had a positive impact on domestic PJ.
From a theoretical perspective, perhaps the most rele-
vant finding is that the largest segment is that of
national cosmopolitans; this group has the highest aver-
age score on cosmopolitanism (even exceeding that of
pure cosmopolitans) but also a very high score on
national identity. Regarding the latter, previous research
has shown that national identity can lead to both critical
(as reflected in patriotism) and uncritical (in the form of
nationalism) support for the nation (Blank and Schmidt
2003). In light of their profile (see Table 8), national
cosmopolitans would appear to reflect the first scenario
(i.e., possessing a healthy/critical attachment to the
home country). However, people feeling locally attached
can also develop protective tendencies toward their own
country (i.e., the in-group), which may explain why
domestically oriented consumers also score high on con-
sumer ethnocentrism.
An important by-product of our study is the impact of
country attitudes (defined as consumers’ positive, nega-
tive, or neutral dispositions toward a specific country)
on PJ and WTB in a domestic and foreign context. We
found that country attitudes affected not only WTB but
also PJ; thus, they are an important source of in- and
out-group bias that should at least be controlled for in
further research.
Managerial Implications
To be successful in the complex and uncertain global
marketplace, managers of multinational corporations
and local firms need to know how to effectively address
consumers to make their products and brands attractive
at home as well as abroad. Our results indicate that con-
sumers can be successfully grouped according to their
degree of consumer ethnocentrism, national identity,
and consumer cosmopolitanism across markets, indicat-
ing that these variables are important to use in global
segmentation and advertising studies. In particular,
while local managers are advised to focus on domesti-
cally oriented consumers, our study reveals for the first
time how pro-in-group traits of consumers can be com-
bined with pro-out-group traits at the same time, mak-
ing the national cosmopolitans particularly interesting
for marketers promoting their products at home and
abroad.
However, our results also indicate that managers must
handle the identified consumer segments with care. For
example, firms in the United States have long encouraged
consumers to “buy American,” using catchy taglines
such as “Our country—our truck” (Bunkley 2006) or
“Buy from Big 3, save U.S. jobs” (Shepardson 2006).
Yet, according to a New York Times article, “urging
consumers to buy American has never worked in any ...
segment of the vehicle market” (Bunkley 2006). Indeed,
our findings show that only a moderate fraction of con-
sumers who identify with a nation are also ethnocentric.
For domestically oriented consumers, these types of
campaigns might well work. However, the majority of
consumers who identify with a nation are also cosmo-
politan. Because “‘made at home’ campaigns may ‘back-
fire’” for cosmopolitan consumers (Riefler, Diaman-
topoulos, and Siguaw 2012, p. 300), companies must be
careful in how they target national cosmopolitans.
According to social identity theory, the key to success is
whether the communication campaign shows uncritical
support for the home country. For example, whereas
Chevrolet’s “Our county—our truck” campaign focused
on clips of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, September
11, and Hurricane Katrina, other, perhaps more success-
ful, campaigns have highlighted a country’s tradition of
producing things. For example, a long-term campaign in
Belgium used the slogan “Belgische kazen blijven ver-
bazen” (“Belgian cheeses continue to amaze”) to high-
light the variety of Belgian cheeses and to educate con-
sumers about the various types of cheeses available
(VLAM 2014). This type of campaign, though directed
at buying domestic, is a good example for communica-
tions targeting national cosmopolitans because it does
not conflict with their central values (in particular, open-
mindedness and variety seeking; see Riefler and Dia-
mantopoulos 2009).
Another notable finding of our study is that the size of
the segments, especially domestically oriented con-
sumers and national cosmopolitans, differed considera-
bly from country to country. In particular, Austrian con-
sumers turned out to be rather ethnocentric, and we
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 45
found Slovenian consumers to be more cosmopolitan.
These cross-country differences manifested themselves
in consumers’ WTB foreign products, which was mainly
driven (negatively) by consumer ethnocentrism in Aus-
tria and (positively) by consumer cosmopolitanism in
Slovenia. International marketing managers should use
this information when screening foreign markets for
their market potential and focus on markets with larger
percentages of cosmopolitan (ethnocentric) consumers,
depending on their chosen positioning (domestic versus
foreign).
Apart from sociopsychological traits of consumers,
managers are also advised to focus on more conven-
tional factors such as consumers’ attitudes toward a
country as well as general judgments of products from a
particular country. Our results reveal that managers
should focus on markets in which consumers have a
favorable attitude toward the originating country as
well as positive judgments of products from the origi-
nating country. Otherwise, they might face a competi-
tive disadvantage that can only gradually be changed
over time and would entail substantial investments in
country brands from the governments involved (for
examples of such a campaign, see Amine, Chao, and
Arnold 2005).
LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUR-
THER RESEARCH
Given that we conducted our study in Europe, further
replication in other settings and with other countries
(e.g., varying in terms of cultural distance and/or geo-
graphical proximity) as stimuli is necessary to generalize
our findings. Such replication efforts are also necessary
with respect to specific product categories or brands. In
this context, the conceptualization of our model is on a
country level. In line with previous research (Josiassen
2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998; Oberecker and
Diamantopoulos 2011), we therefore focused on overall
PJ and WTB to mitigate potential confounding effects
on differences of specific product lines or brands in
availability, positioning, and so forth. Further research
could explicitly acknowledge such differences, take a
more fine-grained approach when specifying relevant
outcome variables, and correlate intentional measures
with actual behavior, such as product ownership (Josi-
assen 2011; Klein, Ettenson, and Morris 1998).
Related to the preceding suggestion, another promising
issue for further research pertains to differences among
the identified consumer segments in terms of their will-
ingness to pay (WTP) when buying domestic and foreign
products/brands. For example, all else being equal, are
pure cosmopolitans willing to pay more than national
cosmopolitans for foreign brands? If so, does this apply
to all kinds of brands or only, say, luxury brands? Simi-
larly, do domestically oriented consumers have a higher
WTP for domestic products/brands than the other two
groups? Although recent research has linked country
images to WTP (e.g., Koschate-Fischer, Diamantopou-
los, and Odenkotte 2012), to our best knowledge, the
same is not the case for the sociopsychological traits
examined in our study.
A third promising direction for further research involves
linking the three sociopsychological traits to perceptions
of brand globalness (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and
Ronkainen 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003)
and brand localness (e.g., Özsomer 2012; Xie, Batra,
and Peng 2015) as well as to different consumer culture
positioning strategies (e.g., global, local, glocal, foreign;
e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999; Strizhakova
and Coulter 2015; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson
2012). To the extent that positioning brand globalness/
localness and/or receptivity to various strategies is found
to be dependent on distinct consumer characteristics, a
more holistic picture of consumers’ preference for global
versus local brands should emerge. Moreover, such link-
ages should facilitate better targeting to distinct con-
sumer groups that vary in their proclivity to opt for
46 Journal of International Marketing
global versus local brands when making purchasing
decisions.
Finally, our findings show that apart from consumer
ethnocentrism, which is an established construct in the
literature, national identity and consumer cosmopoli-
tanism are indeed promising constructs for explaining
behavior in both home and foreign country settings.
However, our study does not investigate the antecedents
of these constructs that could help explain why such dif-
ferences in their effects occur. The conceptual work of
Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2009) and Dinnie (2002)
could serve as a starting point for identifying such
antecedents and their potential interactions.
NOTES
1. We also estimated models with additional controls
such as education and interest in the country. How-
ever, none of these variables had a significant impact
on PJ and WTB (except interest in Italy in Study 2).
Moreover, the rest of the parameters remained stable
in all the cases analyzed. Therefore, we selected age
and income only as control variables because they
had the most significant impact on outcomes in our
model. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggest-
ing these additional analyses to us.
2. Except for country image and foreign PJ.
 Appendix. Construct Measurement

Sociopsychological Traits

Austrian Sample Slovenian Sample

(Study 1) (Study 2)
CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value

Consumer Ethnocentrism
CET1 [Country] people should not buy foreign products, this hurts domestic business and causes
unemployment. .89 .64 .86 — .90 .66 .87 —
CET2 It is not right to purchase foreign products, because this puts [country] people out of jobs. .76 22.29 .81 19.46
CET3 A real [citizen] should always buy domestic products. .89 27.25 .86 24.97
CET4 I always prefer domestic products over foreign ones. .53 10.69 .58 12.27
CET5 We should purchase products manufactured in [country], instead of letting other countries
get rich off us. .87 29.58 .90 26.08
National Identity
NAT1 I see myself as [citizenship]. .93 .77 .76 — .91 .71 .76 —
NAT2 I am glad that I am [citizenship]. .91 20.08 .88 10.44
NAT3 I feel strong ties with [country]. .92 20.33 .83 10.91
NAT4 Being [citizenship] is important to me. .92 20.39 .89 10.74
Consumer Cosmopolitanism
Open-mindedness .78 .54 .81 — .70 .50 .60 —
Diversity appreciation .57 10.39 .61 6.75
Consumption transcending borders .81 12.14 .78 6.84
Model Fit c2 = 180.77, c2 = 133.40,
d.f. = 51; RMSEA = .08; d.f. = 51; RMSEA = .05;
NNFI = .96; CFI = .97 NNFI = .98; CFI = .98

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 47

 Appendix. Continued

Control and Outcome Variables

Domestic (Austrian) Foreign (Italian)
Products Products (Study 1)
Construct Items CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value

Country Attitudes

48 Journal of International Marketing

CA1 I like [country]. .93 .72 .69 — .96 .82 .89 —
CA2 “Good” attitude toward [country]. .93 7.22 .95 23.75
CA3 “Pleasant” attitude toward [country]. .94 6.80 .98 23.77
CA4 “Advantageous” attitude toward [country]. .87 6.50 .88 19.24
CA5 “Friendly” attitude toward [country]. .78 6.10 .82 13.43
PJ
PJ1 Innovativeness .82 .54 .66 — .81 .51 .69 —
PJ2 Design .71 10.96 .66 9.97
PJ3 Prestige .78 7.56 .82 12.83
PJ4 Workmanship .79 7.55 .68 13.04
WTB
PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]. .82 .61 .85 — .90 .76 .92 —
PI2 I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need products. .79 10.19 .87 24.24
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country]. .71 11.50 .81 19.73
Model Fit c2 = 210.62, = 133.18,
c2
d.f. = 51, p = .00; d.f. = 51, p = .00;
RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .05; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = .04;
NNFI = .99; CFI = .99 NNFI = .99; CFI = .99
 Appendix. Continued
Domestic (Slovenian) Foreign (Italian)
Products Products (Study 2)
Construct Items CR AVE l t-Value CR AVE l t-Value

Country Attitudes
CA1 I like [country]. .91 .68 .73 — .95 .80 .87 —
CA2 “Good” attitude toward [country]. .90 10.92 .95 35.85
CA3 “Pleasant” attitude toward [country]. .93 11.61 .95 34.48
CA4 “Advantageous” attitude toward [country]. .73 10.57 .87 26.09
CA5 “Friendly” attitude toward [country]. .80 9.11 .84 21.02
PJ
PJ1 Innovativeness .84 .57 .74 — .79 .50 .66 —
PJ2 Design .79 13.46 .74 10.69
PJ3 Prestige .80 15.22 .79 11.25
PJ4 Workmanship .70 11.49 .57 110.78
WTB
PI1 It is very likely that I will buy products from [country]. .85 .66 .86 — .91 .77 .89 —
PI2 I will purchase products from [country] the next time I need products. .89 15.76 .93 27.70
PI3 I will definitely try products from [country]. .66 13.63 .82 21.91
Model Fit c2 = 114.88, d.f. = 51, = 105.33, d.f. = 51,
c2
p = .00; RMSEA = .04; p = .00; RMSEA = .04;
SRMR = .05; NNFI = .99; SRMR = .04; NNFI = .99;
CFI = .99 CFI = .99

Notes: CR = composite reliability, AVE = average variance extracted, l = standardized indicator loadings.

Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 49

REFERENCES
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levin-
son, and R. N. Sanford (1950), The Authoritarian Person-
ality. New York: Harper & Row.
Ajzen, Icek (2001), “Nature and Operation of Attitudes,”
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev
Batra (1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in
Asia, North America, and Europe: The Role of Global Con-
sumer Culture,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (January), 75–87.
———, ———, and ——— (2006), “Consumer Attitudes
Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents
and Consequences,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 23 (September), 227–39.
Amine, Lyn S., Mike C.H. Chao, and Mark J. Arnold (2005),
“Executive Insights: Exploring the Practical Effects of Coun-
try of Origin, Animosity and Price-Quality Issues: Two Case
Studies of Taiwan and Acer in China,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 13 (2), 114–50.
Bagozzi, Richard P., Mahesh Gopinath, and Prashanth U. Nyer
(1999), “The Role of Emotions in Marketing,” Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (2), 184–206.
——— and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence, 16 (1), 74–94.
Balabanis, George and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2004),
“Domestic Country Bias, Country-of-Origin Effects, and
Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Multidimensional Unfolding
Approach,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
32 (1), 80–95.
Beatty, Sharon E. and Salil Talpade (1994), “Adolescent Influ-
ences in Family Decision Making: A Replication with Exten-
sion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September), 332–41.
Beck, Ulrich (2004), “Cosmopolitical Realism: On the Distinc-
tion Between Cosmopolitanism in Philosophy and the Social
Sciences,” Global Networks, 4 (2), 131–54.
Bizumic, Boris, John Duckitt, Dragan Popadic, Vincent Dru,
and Stephen Krauss (2009), “A Cross-Cultural Investigation
into a Reconceptualization of Ethnocentrism,” European
Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (6), 871–99.
Blank, Thomas (2003), “Determinants of National Identity in
East and West Germany: An Empirical Comparison of Theories
on the Significance of Authoritarianism, Anomie, and General
Self-Esteem,” Political Psychology, 24 (2), 259–88.
——— and Peter Schmidt (2003), “National Identity in a
United Germany: Nationalism or Patriotism? An Empirical
50 Journal of International Marketing
Test with Representative Data,” Political Psychology, 24 (2),
289–312.
Brewer, Marilynn B. (1979), “In-Group Bias in the Minimal
Intergroup Situation: A Cognitive-Motivational Analysis,”
Psychological Bulletin, 86 (2), 307–324.
——— (1999), “The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or
Outgroup Hate?” Journal of Social Issues, 55 (3), 429–44.
——— and Samuel L. Gaertner (2003), “Toward Reduction of
Prejudice: Intergroup Contact and Social Categorization,” in
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Pro-
cesses, Rupert Brown and Samuel L. Gaertner, eds. Malden,
MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 451–72.
Brown, Rupert (2000), “Social Identity Theory: Past Achieve-
ments, Current Problems and Future Challenges,” European
Journal of Social Psychology, 30 (6), 745–78.
Bunkley, Nick (2006), “Aiming to Be the Truck of Patriots,”
The New York Times, September 26, 2006, (accessed Febru-
ary 25, 2015), [available at http://www.nytimes.com/2006/
09/26/business/media/26adco.html].
Cannon, Hugh M. and Attila Yaprak (2002), “Will the Real-
World Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many Faces of Cosmo-
politan Consumer Behavior,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 10 (4), 30–52.
——— and ——— (2012), “Cosmopolitanism as a Journey:
The Construct and Dynamics of Change,” in Consumer Cos-
mopolitanism in the Age of Globalization, Melvin Prince, ed.
New York: Business Expert Press, 3–28.
Chang, Sea J., Arjen Witteloostuijn, and Lorraine Eden (2010),
“Common Method Variance in International Business
Research,” Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2),
178–84.
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos
(2009), “Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism, and
Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and
Outcomes,” Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 116–
46.
———, Nicolas Papadopoulos, and Michel Laroche (2011),
“Identity, Demographics, and Consumer Behaviors,” Inter-
national Marketing Review, 28 (3), 244–66.
Craig, C.S. and Susan P. Douglas (2005), International Market-
ing Research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe (1960), “A New Scale
of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology,” Jour-
nal of Consulting Psychology, 24 (August), 349–54.
DeVellis, Robert F. (2003), Scale Development: Theory and
Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Diamantopoulos, Adamantios, Petra Riefler, and Barbara Egger
(2007), “Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Scale Development
and Validation,” in Flexible Marketing in an Unpredictable
World: Proceedings of the 36th EMAC Annual Conference
(CD-Rom), May 22–25, Reykjavik.
——— and Judy A. Siguaw (2000), Introducing LISREL. Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka A.
Ronkainen (2008), “Cognitive and Affective Reactions of U.S.
Consumers to Global Brands,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 16 (4), 113–35.
Dinnie, Keith (2002), “Implications of National Identity for
Marketing Strategy,” Marketing Review, 2 (3), 285–300.
Doosje, Bertjan, Naomi Ellemers, and Russell Spears (1995),
“Perceived Intragroup Variability as a Function of Group Sta-
tus and Identification,” Journal of Experimental Social Psy-
chology, 31 (5), 410–36.
Dreher, Axel, Noel Gaston, and Pim Martens (2008), Measuring
Globalisation: Gauging Its Consequences. New York: Springer.
Duckitt, John and Thobi Mphuthing (1998), “Group Identifi-
ication and Intergroup Attitudes: A Longitudinal Analysis in
South Africa,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
74 (1), 80–85.
Eurostat (2014), Europe in Figures: Eurostat Yearbook. Luxem-
bourg: European Union.
Feather, Norman T. (1981), “National Sentiment in a Newly
Independent Nation,” Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 40 (6), 1017–28.
Featherstone, Mike (2002), Global Culture: Nationalism, Glob-
alization, and Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Inten-
tion, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equa-
tion Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 39–
50.
Guibernau, Montserrat (2007), The Identity of Nations. Cam-
bridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolp E.
Anderson (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Per-
spective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in a World
Culture,” Theory, Culture & Society, 7, 237–51.
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 51
Heider, Fritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hill, Jason D. (1998), “Creating the Self: Towards a Cosmopol-
itan Identity,” doctoral dissertation, Department of Philoso-
phy, Purdue University.
Hinkin, Timothy R. (1995), “A Review of Scale Development
Practices in the Study of Organizations,” Journal of Manage-
ment, 21 (5), 967–88.
Hogg, Michael A. (2006), “Social Identity Theory,” in Contem-
porary Social Psychological Theories, Peter J. Burke, ed. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press, 111–36.
Huddleston, Patricia, Linda K. Good, and Leslie Stoel (2001),
“Consumer Ethnocentrism, Product Necessity and Polish
Consumers’ Perceptions of Quality,” International Journal of
Retail & Distribution Management, 29 (5), 236–46.
Josiassen, Alexander (2011), “Consumer Disidentification and
Its Effects on Domestic Product Purchases: An Empirical
Investigation in the Netherlands,” Journal of Marketing, 75
(March), 124–40.
Keillor, Bruce D. and G.T.M. Hult (1999), “A Five-Country
Study of National Identity. Implications for International
Marketing Research and Practice,” International Marketing
Review, 16 (1), 65–82.
———, ———, Robert C. Erffmeyer, and Emin Babakus
(1996), “NATID: The Development and Application of a
National Identity Measure for Use in International Market-
ing,” Journal of International Marketing, 4 (2), 57–73.
Kim, Soyoung and Dawn T. Pysarchik (2000), “Predicting Pur-
chase Intentions for Uni-National and Bi-National Products,”
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management,
28 (6), 280–91.
Klein, Jill G., Richard Ettenson, and Balaji C. Krishnan (2006),
“Extending the Construct of Consumer Ethnocentrism: When
Foreign Products Are Preferred,” International Marketing
Review, 23 (3), 304–321.
———, ———, and Marlene D. Morris (1998), “The Animos-
ity Model of Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in
the People’s Republic of China,” Journal of Marketing, 62
(January), 89–100.
Koschate-Fischer, Nicole, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, and
Katharina Odenkotte (2012), “Are Consumers Really Willing
to Pay More for a Favorable Country Image? A Study of
Country-of-Origin Effects on Willingness to Pay,” Journal of
International Marketing, 20 (1), 19–41.
Levine, Robert A. and Donald T. Campbell (1972), Ethnocen-
trism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group
Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Levy, Orly, Schon Beechler, Sully Taylor, and Nakiye A. Boyacig-
iller (2007), “What We Talk About When We Talk About
‘Global Mindset’: Managerial Cognition in Multinational
Corporations,” Journal of International Business Studies, 38
(2), 231–58.
Lindell, Michael K. and David J. Whitney (2001), “Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–21.
Mackie, Diane M. and Eliot R. Smith (1998), “Intergroup Rela-
tions: Insights from a Theoretically Integrative Approach,”
Psychological Review, 105 (4), 499–529.
MacQueen, James B. (1967), “Some Methods for Classification
and Analysis of Multivariate Observations,” in Proceedings of
the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and
Probability, L.A. Le Cam and J. Newman, eds. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 281–97.
Mlicki, Pawel P. and Naomi Ellemers (1996), “Being Different
or Being Better? National Stereotypes and Identifications of
Polish and Dutch Students,” European Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 26 (1), 97–114.
Netemeyer, Richard G., Scot Burton, and Donald R. Lichten-
stein (1995), “Trait Aspects of Vanity: Measurement and
Relevance to Consumer Behavior,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 21 (4), 612–26.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2011), “Consumer
World-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning
in Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Ver-
sus Local Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing,
19 (3), 113–33.
Oberecker, Eva M. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2011),
“Consumers’ Emotional Bonds with Foreign Countries: Does
Consumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?” Journal of
International Marketing, 19 (2), 45–72.
Okechuku, Chike and Vincent Onyemah (1999), “Nigerian
Consumer Attitudes Toward Foreign and Domestic Prod-
ucts,” Journal of International Business Studies, 30 (3), 611–
22.
Özsomer, Ayşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and
Local Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness
and Local Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20
(2), 72–95.
Pappu, Ravi, Pascale G. Quester, and Ray W. Cooksey (2007),
“Country Image and Consumer-Based Brand Equity: Rela-
tionship and Implications for International Marketing,” Jour-
nal of International Business Studies, 38 (5), 726–45.
Parameswaran, Ravi and R.M. Pisharodi (1994), “Facets of
Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment,” Journal
of Advertising, 23 (1), 43–61.
52 Journal of International Marketing
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in
Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88
(5), 879–903.
Prince, Melvin (2012), Consumer Cosmopolitanism in the Age
of Globalization. New York: Business Expert Press.
Punj, Girish and David W. Stewart (1983), “Cluster Analysis in
Marketing Research: Review and Suggestions for Applica-
tions,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 134–48.
Putrevu, Sanjay and Kenneth R. Lord (1994), “Comparative
and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects Under
Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions,” Journal of
Advertising, 23 (2), 77–90.
Reynolds, Nina and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (1998), “The
Effect of Pretest Method on Error Detection Rates: Experi-
mental Evidence,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (5/6),
480–98.
Riefler, Petra and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009), “Con-
sumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and Replication of the
CYMYC Scale,” Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 407–419.
———, ———, and Judy A. Siguaw (2012), “Cosmopolitan
Consumers as Target Group for Segmentation,” Journal of
International Business Studies, 43 (3), 285–305.
Roth, Katharina P. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009),
“Advancing the Country Image Construct,” Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 62 (7), 726–40.
Roth, Martin S. and Jean B. Romeo (1992), “Matching Product
Category and Country Image Perceptions: A Framework for
Managing Country-of-Origin Effects,” Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 23 (3), 477–97.
Roudometof, Victor (2005), “Transnationalism, Cosmopolitanism
and Glocalization,” Current Sociology, 53 (1), 113–35.
Rybina, Liza, James Reardon, and Janet Humphrey (2010),
“Patriotism, Cosmopolitanism, Consumer Ethnocentrism and
Purchase Behavior in Kazakhstan,” Organizations & Markets
in Emerging Economies, 1 (2), 92–107.
Schmitt, Bernd H., Yigang Pan, and Nader T. Tavassoli (1994),
“Language and Consumer Memory: The Impact of Linguistic
Differences Between Chinese and English,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 21 (3), 419–31.
Shankarmahesh, Mahesh N. (2006), “Consumer Ethnocen-
trism: An Integrative Review of Its Antecedents and Conse-
quences,” International Marketing Review, 23 (2), 146–72.
Sharma, Piyush (2011), “Country of Origin Effects in Devel-
oped and Emerging Markets: Exploring the Contrasting Roles
 of Materialism and Value Consciousness,” Journal of Inter-
national Business Studies, 42 (2), 285–306.
Sharma, Subhash, Terence A. Shimp, and Jeongshin Shin
(1995), “Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of Antecedents and
Moderators,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
23 (1), 26–37.
Shepardson, David (2006), “Ford Gives Money to Auto
Retirees’ Campaign; ‘What You Drive, Drives America,’ Ads
Say,” Detroit News, May 12, 2006.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), “Consumer Eth-
nocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280–89.
Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (2013), Statistical
Yearbook. Ljubljana: Republic of Slovenia.
Statistics Austria (2013), Facts & Figures. Vienna: Statistics Austria.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L.
Alden (2003), “How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates
Brand Value,” Journal of International Business Studies, 34
(1), 53–65.
——— and Hans Baumgartner (1998), “Assessing Measure-
ment Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 78–90.
———, Frenkel Ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), “A
Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National
Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal
of Marketing, 63 (April), 55–69.
Strizhakova, Yuliya and Robin A. Coulter (2015), “Drivers of
Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency
Approach,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 1–22.
———, ———, and Linda L. Price (2008), “Branded Products
as a Passport to Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Devel-
oped and Developing Countries,” Journal of International
Marketing, 16 (4), 57–85.
———, ———, and ——— (2012), “The Young Adult Cohort
in Emerging Markets: Assessing Their Glocal Cultural Identity
in a Global Marketplace,” International Journal of Research
in Marketing, 29 (1), 43–54.
Sumner, W.G. (1906), Folkways: The Sociological Importance
of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores, and Morals. New York:
Ginn & Co.
Supphellen, Magne and Terri L. Rittenburg (2001), “Consumer
Ethnocentrism: When Foreign Products Are Better,” Psy-
chology & Marketing, 18 (9), 907–927.
Tajfel, Henri (1974), “Social Identity and Intergroup Behavior,”
Social Science Information, 13 (2), 65–93.
Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism 53
——— (1978), “Social Categorization, Social Identity and
Social Comparison,” in Differentiation Between Social
Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Rela-
tions, Henri Tajfel, ed. London: Academic Press, 61–76.
——— and John C. Turner (1986), “The Social Identity Theory
of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of Intergroup Rela-
tions, S. Worchel and W. Austin, eds. Chicago: Nelson Hall,
7–24.
——— and ——— (2004), “The Social Identity Theory of Inter-
group Behavior,” in Political Psychology: Key Readings, J.T.
Jost, ed. New York: Psychology Press, 276–93.
Thelen, Shawn T. and Earl D. Honeycutt (2004), “Assessing
National Identity in Russia Between Generations Using the
National Identity Scale,” Journal of International Marketing,
12 (2), 58–81.
Thompson, Craig J. and Siok K. Tambyah (1999), “Trying to Be
Cosmopolitan,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (3), 214–
41.
Turner, John C. (1999), “Some Current Issues in Research on
Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories,” in Social
Identity, Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje,
eds. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 6–34.
——— (2010), “Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social
Group,” in Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Henri
Tajfel, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 15–40.
United Nations (2014), World Urbanization Prospects: The
2014 Revision, Highlights. New York: Department of Eco-
nomic and Social Affairs, Population Division.
Verlegh, Peeter W.J. (2007), “Home Country Bias in Product
Evaluation: The Complementary Roles of Economic and
Socio-Psychological Motives,” Journal of International Busi-
ness Studies, 38 (3), 361–73.
Vida, Irena and James Reardon (2008), “Domestic Consump-
tion: Rational, Affective or Normative Choice?” Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 25 (1), 34–44.
VLAM (2014), “Kazen Van Bij Ons,” (accessed January 20,
2014), [available at http://www.belgischekazen.be/BENL/
site/dl-overview.aspx?vCat=9&page=1].
Wang, Cheng L. and Zhen X. Chen (2004), “Consumer Ethno-
centrism and Willingness to Buy Domestic Products in a
Developing Country Setting: Testing Moderating Effects,”
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21 (6), 391–400.
Watson, John J. and Katrina Wright (2000), “Consumer Ethno-
centrism and Attitude Toward Domestic and Foreign Prod-
ucts,” European Journal of Marketing, 34 (9/10), 1149–66.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson
(2012), “Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer Cul-
 ture Positioning: A Personality and Collective Identity Per-
spective,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (1), 58–73.
Wetherell, Margareth (2010), “Cross-Cultural Studies of Mini-
mal Groups: Implications for the Social Identity Theory of
Intergroup Relations,” in Social Identity and Intergroup Rela-
tions, Henri Tajfel, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 207–240.
54 Journal of International Marketing
View publication stats
Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015), “An Extended
Model of Preference-Formation Between Global and Local
Brands: The Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust and
Affect,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.
Zhou, Nan and Russel W. Belk (2004), “Chinese Consumer
Readings of Global and Local Advertising Appeals,” Journal
of Advertising, 33 (3), 63–76.