Consumer Ethnocentrism:
CETSCALE Validation and
Measurement of Extent
RESEARCH
includes research articles that focus on the
analysis and resolution of managerial and
academic issues based on analytical and
empirical or case research
Anupam Bawa
Executive Summary
KEY WORDS
Consumer Ethnocentrism
Pseudopatriotism
CETSCALE
Consumer Behaviour
Consumer ethnocentrism means ‘…the appropriateness, indeed morality of purchasing
foreign made products.’ Today, when the Indian consumer has great access to foreign
goods and the Indian manufacturer is facing increasing competition from foreign
products, the neglect of this topic in India is hard to explain. The CETSCALE, a scale to
measure consumer ethnocentrism, has been tested in many parts of the world but not in
India.
This research examined the psychometrics of the CETSCALE, the extent of consumer
ethnocentrism in India, and the relationship of socio-demographic variables and quality
consciousness with consumer ethnocentrism.
Data were collected from three socio-demographic groups—materials management
professionals, the group with the largest influence on organizational buying behaviour;
university students, the most often researched group of respondents the world over and
hence ideal for a cross-cultural comparison of results; and senior secondary school
students, a group recommended as worth researching by a prominent earlier researcher.
Analysis of data was done with the help of currently used and recommended tools
including exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis.
Results show that the concept of consumer ethnocentrism prevailing in India is not
conceptually equivalent to the concept of consumer ethnocentrism prevailing in other
countries where it has been found to be uni-dimensional. In India, the concept has more
nuances. What is more, the concept as understood by the three different sociodemographic groups is also not identical. The level of consumer ethnocentrism in India
is not less than that prevailing in a similar demographic group in a developed country
like the US. It is the senior secondary school students who are the most consumer
ethnocentric. Socio-demographic variables do not adequately explain the presence, or
otherwise, of consumer ethnocentrism. Neither does quality consciousness.
The managerial implications of the major findings of this study are as follows:
In India, the label ‘made in India’ is not a liability. The Indian consumers will not
lap up foreign goods merely because of their ‘made in’ tags. This should bring
comfort to companies whose products carry the ‘made in India’ label. The threat
perception of freer imports into India should be altered in the light of these
findings.
Foreign companies in India, planning to sell goods manufactured on Indian soil
rather than imported from their plants abroad, will also get support for their
actions from these findings.
That the young Indians (a numerically very large segment of the market) are the
most consumer ethnocentric of them all points to a comfortable future for the
‘made in India’ label.
An attempt has been made to refine the CETSCALE for use in India. Marketing needs
to respond to the criticism of the concept of ethnocentrism in the other social sciences.
It needs to explore the relationship of consumer ethnocentrism with consumer animosity
and consumer affinity (love-hate relationship with other countries).
43
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
43
T
oday, the Indian consumer has greater and easier
access to imported goods than ever before. Consequently, the Indian manufacturer has to face
increasing competition from foreign goods that too on
home turf. In such a scenario, it would be worthwhile
to examine the attitude of Indian consumers towards the
purchase of foreign-made goods. Such an examination
will help the Indian manufacturers to assess the severity
of the threat from imports. The Indian as well as foreign
firms that wish to relocate into India or out of India can
assess the opportunities or threats of such an action and
can find out the extent to which the Indian consumers
differ from, or are similar to, the consumers in others
parts of the world with respect to preference or aversion
to foreign goods.
In this context, one relevant phenomenon that can
be examined is ‘consumer ethnocentrism.’ The credit for
inspiring research into the phenomenon of consumer
ethnocentrism goes to Shimp and Sharma (1987). They
not only coined the term ‘consumer ethnocentrism’ but
also gave to marketing literature the CETSCALE — a
unique scale to measure consumer ethnocentrism —
constructed and validated in a near textbook fashion.
Researchers have investigated the psychometrics of
the CETSCALE in the US, Japan, and many European
countries, including the East European ones (Durvasula,
Andrews and Netemeyer, 1997; Netemeyer, Durvasula
and Lichtenstein, 1991; Steenkamp and Baumgartner,
1998; Luque-Martínez, Ibanez-Zapata and Barrico-Garcia, 2000; Lindquist, et al., 2001; Douglas and Nijssen,
2002). However, in India, the fifth largest economy of
the world, there has been no research on the validity of
the CETSCALE.
Interestingly, while there are many examples of
cross-cultural research carried out to test the CETSCALE, we have not come across any research study that
examines the applicability of the CETSCALE to different
demographic and socio-economic groups within a country. This is an intriguing omission considering that Shimp
and Sharma (1987) had themselves pointed this as a
direction for future research. This research effort has
three broad objectives:
• To assess the validity and reliability of the CETSCALE across three socio-demographic groups in
India, namely, materials management professionals, university students, and senior secondary school
students.
• To compare the extent of consumer ethnocentrism
44
prevailing in different socio-demographic groups in
India with that reported in other studies carried out
in different parts of the world.
• To examine the relationship of consumer ethnocentrism with various socio-demographic variables.
The results of this research will also help to refine
and further develop the CETSCALE. Scale construction
is an important but oft-neglected step in the task of
theory building.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES
Ethnocentrism means culturally-biased judgement. The
origin of the concept is attributed to Summer (1906) who
explained it as a feeling of superiority for one’s group
and all things related to the group. Over the years, the
concept has added psychological and now even economic overtones. Ethnocentrism is a concept of interest not
only to sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists
but also to historians, political scientists, politicians, and
administrators.
Consumer Ethnocentrism
The best explanation of the concept is in the words of
the originators of the concept (Shimp and Sharma, 1987):
We use the term ‘consumer ethnocentrism’ to
represent the beliefs held by American consumers about the appropriateness, indeed morality,
of purchasing foreign-made products. From the
perspective of ethnocentric consumers, purchasing imported products is wrong because, in their
minds, it hurts the domestic economy, causes
loss of jobs, and is plainly unpatriotic; products
from other countries (i.e., out groups) are objects
of contempt to highly ethnocentric consumers.
To non-ethnocentric consumers, however, foreign products are objects to be evaluated on
their own merits without consideration for where
they are made (or perhaps to be evaluated more
favourably because they are manufactured outside the United States).
The CETSCALE: The 17-item, seven-point CETSCALE
has much to recommend it. It has been painstakingly
constructed and distilled through the stages of item
generation, item screening, two purification studies, and
four subsequent studies conducted to examine the psychometrics of the scale. The framers of the scale, Shimp
and Sharma, were able to demonstrate its reliability and
validity — convergent, discriminant as well as nomoCONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
44
logical (Appendix).
The CETSCALE adheres to the viewpoint that consumer ethnocentrism is a matter of ‘how ethnocentric?’
and not ‘whether ethnocentric?’ It does not give a consumer ethnocentric/not ethnocentric type of categorization. Rather it gives total scores ranging from 17 to 119.
Lindquist et al. (2001) are of the opinion that the 17
items of the CETSCALE are linked to the following four
concepts — ‘it hurts the domestic economy,’ ‘results in
loss of jobs,’ ‘is unpatriotic,’ and ‘is tied to product
availability,’ though Shimp and Sharma did not classify
the items in this manner. There also exists a shorter 10item version of the CETSCALE (Appendix). It has been
used not only by Shimp and Sharma (1987) but also by
Steenkamp and Baumgartner (1998), Lindquist et al.
(2001), and Douglas and Nijssen(2003).
The CETSCALE has given mixed results in different
parts of the world. Results from the US, Russia, Spain,
France, Japan, and West Germany support the uni-dimensionality, reliability, discriminant validity, and
nomological validity of the scale (Netemeyer, Durvasula
and Lichtenstein, 1991; Durvasula, Andrews and Netemeyer, 1997; Luque-Martínez, Ibanez-Zapata and Barrico-Garcia, 2000). The results obtained by Lindquist et
al. (2001) while working with the abridged 10-item CETSCALE in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, are
‘mixed but generally acceptable.’ Significantly, it was
found that different sub-sets of items worked in different
countries. Douglas and Nijssen (2003) found that in the
Netherlands, the 10-item scale was not uni-dimensional.
It had a two-dimensional structure — one dimension
consisting of core ethnocentrism items, the other consisting of items relating to the availability of domestic
products. The predictive validity of the CETSCALE has
been found to be inconsistent across product categories
(Herche, 1992). Mean scores on the CETSCALE appear
stable over time when the population is viewed as a
whole but they are not stable for specific sub-groups
(Nielsen and Spence, 1997).
It is against this background that the following
hypotheses have been proposed. A lack of prior research
in India on the psychometrics of the CETSCALE acted
as a constraint while framing the hypotheses.
H1: Each of the 17 items of the CETSCALE is able to
discriminate between high scorers and low scorers
in each of the three socio-demographic groups
sampled.
H2: The CETSCALE is uni-dimensional in each of the
three socio-demographic groups sampled.
H3: The CETSCALE has internal consistency in each of
the three socio-demographic groups sampled.
H4: The CETSCALE has discriminant validity with
respect to related phenomena against which it is
tested in each of the three socio-demographic groups
sampled.
H5: The CETSCALE has nomological validity with
respect to each of the variables in its nomological
net against which it was tested in each of the three
socio-demographic groups sampled.
Extent of Consumer Ethnocentrism
Consumer ethnocentrism is a phenomenon of the developed world (Okechuku, 1994; La Barre, 1994; Good and
Huddleston, 1995; Durvasula, Andrews and Netemeyer,
1997; Vida and Fairhurst, 1999). Consumers from less
developed countries have repeatedly shown a marked
preference for imported goods (Papadopoulos, Heslop
and Beraes, 1990; La Barre, 1994; Agbonifoh and Eliminian, 1994; Mohammad et al., 2000). Research that found
consumers of developed countries to have no prejudice
for home country products is in a minority (Johansson,
Douglas and Nonaka, 1985).
The Indians are generally perceived as clamouring
for foreign brands (Varma, 1998). Batra et al,’s (2000)
paper contains an account of literature that gives possible reasons for the average Indian’s fondness for foreign goods. These reasons include search for status
symbols in the hierarchy-conscious Indian society, inferiority complex vis-à-vis the (erstwhile) foreign rulers,
increased contact with the West, rising incomes, changing expectations, and cultural receptiveness to symbolism of brands.
But, there exists a different strain of thought too.
La Barre (1994) quoting the results of the Bozell-Gallup
worldwide quality poll says: ‘India is an import receptive country but it has a healthy self image.’ This seeming
contradiction is easy to understand when we remember
that ‘in India the open mind is as much a cultural heritage
as the closed mind’ (Ahmed, 1979). According to Ahmed,
the ‘open mind’ of the Indian society can be gauged from
the innumerable invaders of alien cultures that have
been absorbed into this society; the Indian notion of
hospitality that has made Indians tolerant of different
cultures, languages, and religions; the lack of traits of
revenge and punishment in the people, and the Indians
being open not only to experiences of the world of reality
45
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
45
but also to a separate reality. The ‘closed mind’ of the
Indian society can be evidenced from, among other things,
the intolerance and discrimination of lower castes, the
authoritarian family structure, concern with status and
power, and glorification of the past.
H6: Indian respondents will be less consumer ethnocentric than comparable samples from the developed
world.
Consumer Ethnocentrism and Socio-demographic
Variables
A good review of literature has been presented by Good
and Huddleston (1995) and Al-Sulaiti and Baker (1998)
on this aspect of consumer ethnocentrism. Lately, Vida
and Fairhurst (1999) have also examined this aspect.
Regarding age, the dominant view is that the older will
be more consumer ethnocentric than the younger. Regarding education, there is a near consensus that higher
the education level lesser the consumer ethnocentrism.
Nijssen, Douglas and Bressers (2002) feel that consumer
ethnocentrism is due to lack of knowledge. The results
on income are split. Shimp and Sharma (1987) had found
those in the lower socio-economic group to be more
ethnocentric than those higher up. They attributed this
to the fear of losing jobs to foreign competitors. Regarding gender, the dominant view is that women will be
more consumer ethnocentric.
In addition to the variables of age, education, income, and gender, this study examined the variables of
socio-economic classification of households (SEC) and
quality consciousness for their relationship with consumer ethnocentrism. The SEC grade of a household is
determined by the occupation and education of the head
of the household (Agrawal, 1994). It helps circumvent
the problems caused by the rampant misreporting of
income by the respondents in India.
It was hypothesized that the desire for foreign
products could be a quest for quality especially as
preference for foreign goods is higher in the less developed countries and more among the higher income
categories.
H7: The different socio-demographic groups will differ
with respect to consumer ethnocentrism. The most
consumer ethnocentric group will have a higher
average age, least education, least average income,
significantly more members from the lower SEC
grades, significantly more females, and will be the
least quality-conscious.
46
The relationship between consumer ethnocentrism
and socio-demographic variables is proposed to be examined not only across the three socio-demographic
groups but also within each of the groups sampled by
means of testing the hypothesis given below.
H8: In each of the three socio-demographic groups, the
more consumer ethnocentric will be the older, the
less educated, from the lower income group, from
the lower SEC grade, females, and the less qualityconscious.
METHODOLOGY
As far as possible, constructs and variables used by other
researchers examining consumer ethnocentrism were
used. A literal translation of the CETSCALE was used
following the practice adopted by all the researchers
previous to Douglas and Nijssen (2002). Pseudopatriotism and image of home country were measured to
estimate divergent validity of the CETSCALE. To measure pseudopatriotism, a 14-item scale, closely following
the P-Scale of Adorno et al. (1950) was developed and
tested. To measure the image of home country, the
relevant part of the country-of-origin scale developed
by Parmeswaran and Pisharodi (1994) was used. Quality
consciousness was measured with the three-item perfectionist/high quality conscious scale (Sproles and Kendall, 1986). Belief about foreign-made products and belief
about products made in India were measured with two
similar, four-item, seven-point scales, adapted from the
scales used by Klein, Ettenson and Morris (1998) and
Nijssen, Douglas and Bressers (2002). The items of each
of these constructs are included in the Appendix. The
validity and reliability of these ‘borrowed scales’ was
tested before they were put to use (Table 1).
Sample Profile
The business executives most likely to influence organizational buying behaviour are material managers and
hence they were chosen as one socio-demographic group
of interest. The members of the Chandigarh branch of
the Indian Institute of Materials Management (IIMM),
a body of materials management professionals drawn
largely from the industry but also including government
and universities, were approached. One hundred and
ninety three of the 210 members could be contacted by
mail. Sixty replies were received before the cut-off date.
The students of the University Business School,
Panjab University, Chandigarh were the other socioCONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
46
Table 1: Reliability of the Scales Used
Scale
CETSCALE
Pseudopatriotism scale*
Home country image
Quality consciousness
Belief about foreign products
Belief about Indian products
No. of
Items
17
9
3
4
4
Materials Management
Professionals
Coefficient
n
Alpha
.9471
.7187
.7815
.6435
.6618
.8727
58
56
58
58
59
59
University
Students
Coefficient
n
Alpha
.8812
.6411
.7489
.7186
.7717
.6857
103
104
103
104
104
104
Senior Secondary
School Students
Coefficient
n
Alpha
.8708
.7020
.6327
.5703
.5839
.7185
175
172
178
187
181
184
Notes : Frequency totals may vary due to missing data.
* The number of items for materials management professionals was 11, for university students 12, and for senior secondary
school students 14. See also Appendix.
demographic group of interest through random sampling of students. One hundred and four filled questionnaires were obtained. Including this group in the study
would facilitate comparison of findings across different
research studies as students belonging to the faculties
of Economics/Business Management/Commerce are the
most oft-researched group of respondents in studies on
consumer behaviour.
The senior secondary school students were chosen
as the third group of interest as no study on consumer
ethnocentrism has studied this age group though Shimp
and Sharma (1987) did wonder if the CETSCALE would
be applicable to high school students.
As government schools get the larger share of students and are popular with all income groups at the
senior secondary level, the students of government senior
secondary schools of the Union Territory of Chandigarh
were considered. Using stratified random sampling, 188
filled questionnaires were obtained. Data were collected
from November 2002 to February 2003.
The profile of the sample drawn from each of the
three socio-demographic groups is given in Table 2. The
senior secondary school students are the socio-demographic group with the least age, education, and average
income. It is the only group in which members from all
the socio-economic grades are found. While there are no
females in the sample of the materials management
professionals, the number of males and females in the
samples of the university students and the senior secondary school students does not differ significantly
(X 2 = 1.927, df=1).
TESTING OF HYPOTHESES
Psychometrics of the CETSCALE
Hypothesis 1 relates to the discriminating power of each
of the 17 items of the CETSCALE. Table 3 gives, for each
of the three groups, mean scores of all respondents,
mean scores of the top 25 per cent scorers, and the bottom
25 per cent scorers. The difference in the mean scores
obtained by the top 25 per cent scorers and bottom 25
per cent scorers were tested with the t-test. All t values
were significant at .01 level of significance.* Thus, each
item of the CETSCALE has discriminating power.
Hypothesis 2 relates to the uni-dimensionality of
the CETSCALE. As can be seen from Table 4, all the itemto-total correlations are significant in each of the three
groups studied. While in the group of materials management professionals, all item-to-total correlations are
above 0.6, in the group of university students, they are
above 0.47, and in the senior secondary school students
sample, they are above 0.39.
As the results of the exploratory factor analysis
given in Table 5 show, the KMO values are meritorious
(>0.8) for all the three groups. However, it is only in the
group of materials management professionals that at
62.779, the percentage of variance extracted exceeds the
thumb rule of 0.6 (Malhotra, 2001). The percentage of
variance extracted for the university students and senior
secondary school students is low at 46.21 per cent and
38.332 per cent respectively.
As the scale is hypothesized to be uni-dimensional,
all items should load highly (>0.3 or hopefully 0.5) on
one factor. Stringent items loading retention rules are
item loadings 0.5, the difference between an item’s two
highest loadings to be > 0.20, at least three items to load
on each factor (Tansey, Carroll and Lin Jun, 2001). On
the basis of these rules, the CETSCALE cannot be declared to be uni-dimensional.
There is a three-factor solution for materials man* Details can be obtained from the author.
47
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
47
Table 2: Profile of the Sample
Demographic Variables
Age (Years)
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70+
Mean age(n)
SD
Education
Class 10
Class 12+ but not graduate
Graduate/post-graduate general
Graduate/post-graduate professional
Mean no. of years of education (n)
SD
Household income (Rupees/pa)
0-40000(LC)*
40,001-80,000(LMC)*
80,001-1,20000(UMC)*
1,20,001-1,60,000(UMC)*
1,60,001-2,50,000(UC)*
2,50,001-5,00,000(uc)*
+5,00,000(uc)*
Mean income (Rs/pm)(n)
SD
Sec grade**
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Gender
Male
Female
Notes:
Materials Management
Professionals
F
Percentage
4
13
22
17
2
1
6.8
22.0
37.3
28.8
3.4
1.7
University
Students
F
Percentage
Senior Secondary
School Students
F
Percentage
92
10
2
187
1
-
44.80(59)
10.223
4
20
34
72
32
16.79(58)
1.281
99.5
0.5
-
1.9
22.93(104)
3.257
6.9
34.5
58.6
1
3
13
23
18
88.5
9.6
69.2
30.8
16.56(187)
0.922
188
-
15.91(107)
0.915
100
10.00(188)
0.00
1.07
5.2
22.4
39.7
31.0
9
8.7
7
6.7
31
29.8
46
44.2
11
10.6
29,412.385(98)
22,876.84
33
44
43
18
29
13
4
17.9
23.9
23.4
9.8
15.8
7.1
2.2
9,511.3(153)
7,579.8
49
7
2
-
84.5
12.1
3.4
-
64
25
1.2
1
1
-
62.1
24.3
11.7
1.0
1.0
-
31
34
24
10
27
25
24
3
17.4
19.1
13.5
5.6
15.2
14.0
13.5
1.7
60
-
100
-
67
37
64.4
35.6
104
84
55.3
44.7
36,706.8(54)
23,542.4
Frequency totals may vary due to missing data.
* LC – lower class, LMC – lower middle class, MC – middle class, UMC – upper middle class, UC – upper class.
** SEC grade 1 is the highest and 8 is the lowest (Agrawal, 1994).
agement professionals and senior secondary school students and a four-factor solution for university students.
As identification and labelling of each of the factors is
not required by the hypothesis, it is not being done.
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed
on the CETSCALE with the objective of determining the
fit of the one-factor model. Some items of the LISREL
output are reported in Table 6.
While using CFA, researchers are advised to report
one or two indices of each of the three types of fit —
48
absolute fit, comparative fit, and parsimonious fit
(Kelloway, 1998). The rule of thumb for good fitting
models are, among others, non significant chi-square
results, values >0.9 for goodness of fit index (GFI),
comparative fit index (CFI), normed fit index (NFI) and
non normed fit fix (NNFI), value >0.8 or >0.9 for adjusted
goodness of fit index (AGFI), value <0.10 for root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), and value <0.05
for root mean square residual (RMSR). The parsimonious normed fit index (PNFI) and the parsimonious
CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
48
Table 3: Discriminating Power of the Items of the CETSCALE
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Materials Management
Professionals
Mean for
Mean for
Mean for
All
Low
High
Respondents
Quartile
Quartile
n*
n=15
n=14
3.82
4.03
4.50
3.36
2.07
3.05
2.73
3.43
3.53
3.53
3.03
2.18
4.03
2.10
3.23
4.33
2.80
1.87
1.80
1.80
1.87
1.07
1.40
1.27
1.60
1.67
1.60
1.47
1.07
1.93
1.07
1.47
1.93
1.20
University Students
Mean for
Mean for
All
Low
Respondents Quartile
n**
n=27
6.07
6.07
6.21
5.64
3.57
5.07
5.07
6.0
5.64
5.79
5.50
3.71
5.64
3.79
4.43
5.86
5.00
3.18
3.89
4.27
3.01
1.63
2.60
2.36
3.80
3.26
3.35
3.06
2.13
3.63
2.11
3.26
4.39
2.52
1.93
2.44
2.15
1.59
1.07
1.89
1.07
2.07
2.22
2.00
1.74
1.11
2.52
1.48
2.15
2.78
1.41
Mean for
High
Quartile
n=23
4.43
5.22
5.96
4.65
2.61
3.61
3.96
5.39
4.57
4.65
4.26
3.17
4.87
2.83
4.87
5.91
4.00
Senior Secondary
School Students
Mean for
Mean for
Mean for
All
Low
High
Respondents Quartile
Quartile
n***
n=45
n=41
4.94
5.66
5.90
4.52
2.87
4.56
4.68
5.06
5.03
5.62
4.94
2.81
4.75
3.36
4.00
5.91
4.31
3.18
3.96
4.71
2.89
2.29
2.78
2.47
3.27
3.84
4.58
3.18
2.20
3.24
1.76
2.20
4.44
2.71
6.61
6.39
6.93
5.80
4.27
6.37
6.49
6.54
6.39
6.54
6.66
4.15
5.90
5.46
6.02
6.78
6.00
Notes: Responses were obtained on a seven-point scale with one being strongly disagree (low ethnocentrism) and seven being
strongly agree (high ethnocentrism).
* n is 58 for item 4. It is 60 for all other items. ** n is 103 for item 5. It is 104 for all other items.
*** n is 183 for item 13, 185 for item 2, 186 for items 6,8, and 11, 187 for items 1,5, and 10 and 188 for all the remaining
items.
goodness of fit index (PGFI) should be high though there
is no such norm as ‘high.’ There should be no standardized residuals greater than 2.58 (Kelloway, 1998; Sharma, 1996; Lindquist et al., 2001).
From the results reported in Table 6, it is highly
doubtful that the 17-item CETSCALE is uni-dimensional. All the three chi-square probabilities are significant;
in none of the three samples do GFI, CFI, NFI or NNFI
touch the value of 0.9, RMSR is greater than the norm
of 0.05, and the standardized residuals >2.58 are many
(3 to 6). However AGFI exceeds 0.8 in the sample of
senior secondary school students and the RMSEA is
<0.10 in two samples — university students and senior
secondary school students. The CETSCALE, though not
uni-dimensional, has the best fit in the sample of senior
secondary school students. Not only are the PNFI and
PGFI values the highest of the three samples, even the
GFI, AGFI, CFI, NFI, and NNFI are the highest in this
sample.
Hypothesis 3 relates to the internal consistency of
the CETSCALE. This was assessed with the help of
coefficient alpha. As can be seen from Table 1, it is above
0.9 for materials management professionals and above
0.8 for the other two groups. A very laudable score,
indeed. Reliability of the CETSCALE is higher than that
of all the other scales used in this study.
Hypothesis 4 relates to the discriminant validity of
the CETSCALE. ‘Pseudopatriotism’ and ‘Image of Home
Table 4: Assessment of Uni-dimensionality
CETSCALE, Item to Total Correlation
Item Correlated
with Total
CETSCORE
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Range of Correlation
of
Materials
Management
Professionals
University
Students
n=58
n=103
Senior
Secondary
School
Students
n=175
.771
.756
.781
.786
.606
.677
.798
.833
.784
.761
.820
.610
.707
.728
.637
.664
.824
.606-.833
.584
.550
.700
.659
.476
.508
.672
.726
.558
.569
.634
.476
.528
.386
.578
.705
.633
.476-.726
.624
.513
.579
.588
.405
.625
.712
.699
.574
.459
.650
.392
.501
.594
.623
.504
.609
.392-.712
Note: All correlations are significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
49
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
49
Table 5: Assessment of Uni-dimensionality of the CETSCALE: Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis
No. of Factors
(Eigen Value >1)
KMO
Percentage of
Variance Explained
Item/Factors and
Loadings
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Materials Management
Professionals
University
Students
Senior Secondary
School Students
3
.879
4
.815
3
.868
62.779
46.215
38.332
a
.686
.564
.755
.642
.396
.679
.770
.710
.543
b
c
b
c
d
.471
.622
.670
.302
.655
.592
.488
.451
.418
a
b
.327
.439
.693
.576
.487
.770
.699
.454
.394
.386
.515
.458
.308
.399
.374
.557
.523
.405
.666
.363
.514
.805
.165
.371
.727
.731
.399
.323
.762
.387
.597
.462
.112
.372
.305
c
.534
.616
.526
.307
.576
a
.563
.269
.401
.281
.397
.394
.217
.239
.522
.473
.351
.244
.242
.444
.117
.142
.577
.533
.570
.420
.589
.495
.551
Notes: For each item, the highest factor loading is reported. The other factor loadings are reported only if their difference from the
higher ones is <0.2.
Analysis was done using common factor analysis (with principal axis factoring). These are rotated factor loadings obtained using
varimax rotation.
Country’ were identified as constructs that were related
yet conceptually distinct from consumer ethnocentrism.
It was expected that the correlation of CETSCORE with
these two phenomena would not be high as they were
after all different constructs. The results are presented
in Table 7. As expected, the three correlations with Image
of Home Country are low (r = 0.180, 0.122, and 0.115)
and none of these is significant. However, all the correlations with the pseudopatriotism scale are significant
and of a moderate level (r = 0.444, 0.421, and 0.566). This
last set of results should not be taken to mean that
CETSCALE lacks divergent validity. The correlations
may be due to true covariation between related constructs. Shimp and Sharma(1987) describe the ethnocentric consumer as one to whom purchasing foreign goods
is ‘plainly unpatriotic.’ According to them, it is the nonethnocentric consumer for whom ‘foreign products are
to be evaluated on their own merit.’ But, according to
Adorno et al. (1950) this ‘critical understanding’ is a trait
of the patriot as opposed to the pseudopatriot. Therefore, consumer ethnocentrism and pseudopatriotism may
well be found together.
Table 6: Assessment of Uni-dimensionality of the CETSCALE: Results of Comfirmatory Factor Analysis
Sr.
No.
Indicator
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Chi-square
Degrees of freedom
Chi-square probability
Goodness of fit index (GFI)
Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)
Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
Root mean square residual (RMSR)
Comparative fit index (CFI)
Normed fit index (NFI)
Non normed fit index (NNFI)
Parsimony normed fit index (PNFI)
Parsimony goodness of fit index (PGFI)
Standardized residuals > 2.58
Materials Management
Professionals
237.38
119.00
.000
.69
.60
.12
.30
.82
.71
.80
.62
.53
3
50
University Students
242.11
119.00
.000
.79
.73
.098
.24
.78
.65
.75
.57
.61
6
Senior Secondary
School Students
217.18
119.00
.000
.87
.83
.070
.26
.87
.76
.85
.76
.68
5
CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
50
Hypothesis 5 relates to the nomological validity of
the CETSCALE. Scores obtained on the CETSCALE were
correlated with five other scores — belief about foreignmade products, belief about Indian-made products,
attitude towards foreign products, attitude towards
Indian products, and the importance of buying products
made in India. The pattern of correlations, as discerned
from Table 7, is almost entirely as expected. While all
the correlations of CETSCORES with belief about foreign-made products are negative, the correlations with
belief about Indian-made products are positive (r = -0.09,
-0.127, and -0.072 as against r = 0.212, 0.008, and 0.215).
While consumer ethnocentrism scores correlate negatively with attitude towards foreign products, they
correlate positively with attitude towards Indian products (r = -0.27, -0.279, and -0.270 as against r =0.088, 0.196,
and 0.307). It was expected that correlations of CETSCORE would be higher with attitudes (both for foreignmade and Indian-made products) than with beliefs (both
about foreign-made or Indian-made products). This has
been found correct in five of the six pairs of correlations
examined (comparing correlations with attitude and
belief respectively towards foreign products in each of
the three socio demographic groups, r = -0.27, -0.091;
r = -0.279, -0.127; r = -0.270, -0.072; comparing correlations with attitude and belief respectively towards
Indian-made products, r = 0.088, 0.212; r = 0.196, 0.008;
r = 0.307, 0.215). The only exception is in the data obtained
from the materials management professionals where
correlation of CETSCORE with belief about Indian products (r = 0.212) is higher than attitude towards Indian
products (r=.088). Lastly, it was expected that the CETSCORES correlation with importance of buying products made in India would be higher than its correlation
with the other four variables selected for ascertaining
nomological validity. Not only are these correlations the
highest (r = 0.476, 0.492, and 0.349), they are also all
significant at p=.000.
Extent of Consumer Ethnocentrism
Hypothesis 6 relates to the comparison of levels of
consumer ethnocentrism in India with those reported
from comparable samples in research conducted in other
parts of the world.
Table 8 gives a snapshot of the CETSCORES obtained by the different groups in this study as well as
the CETSCORES reported in the studies that had college
or university students as samples. When the significance
of the difference between means of the CETSCORE
obtained by university students in this study and the
eight other results from other studies using university/
college students was examined, only two results were
found to be significantly different. The means reported
by Durvasula, Andrews and Netemeyer (1997) for the
Russian students and those reported by Vida and Fairhurst (1999) for the Hungarian students are significantly
lesser than those obtained in this study giving a critical
ratio of 8.839 and 3.990 respectively. The results obtained in the US, Czech Republic, Estonia, and Poland
are not significantly different from those obtained in
India. They all give a critical ratio of less than 1.96
(Garrett, 1966). This challenges the belief that consumer
ethnocentrism is a phenomena of the developed world.
While on the one hand, the Indians cannot be accused of clamouring for foreign goods, on the other
hand, they do not give evidence of having an ‘open mind’
greater than that present in other countries.
Consumer Ethnocentrism and
Socio-demographic Variables
Hypothesis 7 states that the group with the highest
CETSCORE would be the one with the highest average
Table 7: Assessment of Divergent Validity and Nomological Validity of the CETSCALE Using Correlations
Scales
Pseudopatriotism
Home country image
Belief about foreign products
Belief about Indian products
Attitude towards foreign products*
Attitude towards Indian products*
Importance of buying Indian products
Materials Management
Professionals
r
n
p
.444
.180
-.091
.212
-.27
.088
.476
54
56
57
57
58
58
58
.001
.183
.500
.113
.024
.511
.000
r
University
Students
n
p
.421
.122
-.127
.008
-.279
.196
.492
103
102
103
103
103
103
103
.000
.224
.201
.936
.004
.047
.000
Senior Secondary
School Students
r
n
p
.566
.115
-.072
.215
-.270
.307
.349
160
166
169
171
174
174
174
.000
.140
.354
.005
.000
.000
.000
* These were gauged by single item scales of seven points each.
51
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
51
Table 8: CETSCORES Obtained by Different Studies Using Student Samples
Author and Year
Sample Description
Shimp and
Sharma (1987)
‘Crafted with pride’
(College students sample)
USA
(University students sample)
Russia
(University students sample)
Czech Republic
Estonia
Hungary
Poland
(All university students)
University students
Materials management professionals
Senior secondary school students
Durvasula et al. (1997)
Vida and
Fairhurst (1999)
Bawa (2004)
age, least education, least average income, significantly
more members from the lower SEC grades, significantly
more females, and least quality consciousness.
As can be seen from Table 8, the group with the
highest score is that of the senior secondary school
students. The t-test results given in Table 9 show that
while the CETSCORE obtained by the materials management professionals is no different from that obtained
by the university students, the CETSCORE obtained by
the senior secondary school students is significantly
higher than that obtained by the other two groups.
In accordance with hypothesis 7, the group with the
highest consumer ethnocentrism (senior secondary school
students) does have the least education, least average
income, and more members from the lower SEC groups
than do the other two groups. But it is early to tell
whether the high consumer ethnocentrism of this group
is because of these characteristics.
It may be pointed out here that as opposed to
hypothesis 7, the senior secondary school students have
the least average age and not the highest average age.
The part of hypothesis 7 that pertains to gender
could not be tested because the number of females in
the two student groups — university and senior secondary school — does not differ significantly. It may be
recalled that there were no females in the sample of
Table 9: T-test Results
Samples Compared
University students with senior
secondary school students
Senior secondary school students
with materials management professionals
University students with materials
management professionals
Mean
SD
145
145
51.92
53.92
16.37
16.52
144
50.24
22.85
60
32.02
12.47
131
179
76
172
45.17
53.59
43.30
50.61
11.97
13.79
13.76
14.33
103
58
175
52.43
55.24
78.71
16.812
25.128
19.400
Sample Size
t(df)
p value
-11.45
(276)
6.501
(80.713)
-.762
(86.293)
.000
.000
.448
52
materials management professionals. As the three groups
have similar scores on quality consciousness, even that
aspect of hypothesis 7 could not be checked. (On quality
consciousness, for material management professionals
M = 13.40, SD = 1.388; for university students, M = 13.24,
SD = 1.549 and for senior secondary school students,
M = 13.30, SD = 1.828).
Hypothesis 8 relates to the relationship of CETSCORE and socio-demographic variables within each of
the groups. Once again it was hypothesized that greater
ethnocentrism will be found among the older, the less
educated, those from the lower income group, the lower
SEC group, females, and the less quality conscious. This
hypothesis was tested with the help of ANOVA. The
results are summarized in Table 10.
Contrary to the hypothesis, people of different age
groups, different gender, and different levels of quality
consciousness do not differ significantly with respect to
consumer ethnocentrism. This is true for all the three
groups studied.
The relationship of education and consumer ethnocentrism is as hypothesized in the sample of university
students but not in the sample of materials management
professionals. Those without a professional qualification are significantly more consumer ethnocentric than
those with a professional qualification in the sample of
university students.
The relationship of consumer ethnocentrism with
income and SEC is not significant for materials management professionals and university students but it is
significant for senior secondary school students. When
‘cell’ means are examined for senior secondary school
students, it is seen that as income rises, consumer ethnocentrism decreases — up to an income of Rs 0.25
CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
52
Table 10: Effect of Various Variables on Consumer Ethnocentrism: One-way ANOVA
Source
Materials management professionals
Age
Education
Income
SEC
Gender
Quality consciousness
University students
Age
Education
Income
SEC
Gender
Quality consciousness
Senior secondary school students
Age
Education
Income
SEC
Gender
Quality consciousness
*
Sum of Squares
Df
Mean Squares
F
2913.845
2497.278
4293.963
349.938
187.727
5
2
4
2
3
582.769
1248.639
1073.491
174.969
62.576
.900
1.980
1.771
.261
ns
ns
ns
ns
0.92 ns
631.886
1479.791
1638.741
232.990
283.531
1302.173
2
1
4
4
1
3
315.943
1479.791
409.685
58.248
283.531
434.058
1.120 ns
5.465*
1.477 ns
.201 ns
1.003 ns
1.561 ns
300.513
11926.082
10355.957
309.703
2504.636
1
6
7
1
3
300.513
1987.680
1479.422
309.703
834.879
.798 ns
6.156**
4.633**
.822 ns
2.265 ns
Significant at .05. ** Significant at .01. ns: Not significant.
million per annum. After that, increase in income goes
hand in hand with increase in consumer ethnocentrism.
As for SEC, as SEC levels increase, consumer ethnocentrism generally decreases. Results obtained for SEC
should be given greater credence than those obtained
for income owing to rampant misreporting of income in
India.
REFINING THE CETSCALE
In the light of the results of the confirmatory factory
analysis which revealed that the 17-item CETSCALE was
not uni-dimensional, it was decided to obtain better
scales with the help of item reduction. This is a well
documented practice in marketing research (Churchill,
1979; Goodwin, Purwar and Rogers, 1985; Lindquist et
al., 2001). CFA was used repeatedly. The largest Lagrange multipliers (also known as modification indices)
indicated which scale item should be deleted. This iterative process helped obtain stronger fitting single factor
models. Table 11 contains information on the key indicators of the modified scales thus obtained.
As can be seen from Table 11, items have been
dropped from the CETSCALE to get better scales. While
six items have been dropped each in the sample of
materials management professionals and university
students, three items have been dropped in the sample
of senior secondary school students.
In Table 11, the chi-square probabilities are all non
significant (>0.05), the RMSEAs are all <0.10, all the CFIs
and NNFIs are >0.9, all the coefficient alphas are >0.8,
the GFIs are >0.9 in the samples of university students
and senior secondary school students and 0.88 in the
sample of materials management professionals. The
AGFIs are all >0.8. However, the RMSRs are higher than
the norm of 0.05, the NFIs are between 8 and 0.9, and
in the sample of university students, there is one standardized residual that is greater than 2.58. Overall, these
are fairly good single factor scales. What is more, the
values of the fit indices for the modified CETSCALE
given in Table 11 are far superior to the values of the
fit indices for the 17-item CETSCALE given in Table 6.
It is worthwhile to examine the items dropped from
the CETSCALE in the different samples (Table 12). From
Table 12, it is evident that a total of nine items have been
dropped in one or the other sample. No item has been
dropped in all the three samples. Three items have been
dropped in one sample only (items 1,10, and 17) while
six items have been dropped in two of the three samples
(items 2,4,5,6,7, and 12). From this, it can be inferred that
consumer ethnocentrism means different things to different samples.
It may be pointed out that there are eight items of
the CETSCALE that feature in each of the three modified
scales. These items are item serial numbers 3, 8, 9, 11,
13, 14, 15, and 16 of the original 17-item CETSCALE.
53
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
53
Table 11: CFA Fit Indices for the Modified CETSCALE
Scale and Fit Indices
Materials Management
Professionals
No. of items in the modified scale
Items dropped
1. Chi-square
2. Degrees of freedom
3. Chi-square probability
4. Goodness of fit index (GFI)
5. Adjusted goodness of fit index (AGFI)
6. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)
7. Root mean square residual (RMSR)
8. Comparative fit index (CFI)
9. Normed fit index (NFI)
10. Non-normed fit index (NNFI)
11. Parsimony normed fit index (PNFI)
12. Parsimony goodness of fit index (PGFI)
13. Standardized residual >2.58
14. Coefficient alpha
11
1,5,6,7,12,17
46.06
44
.39
.88
.82
.00
.21
.99
.89
.99
.71
.59
0
.9278
Thus, there is a core group of items that feature in all
the modified CETSCALEs. This information should be
used by all the subsequent researchers working on
consumer ethnocentrism in India.
While in this section a modified CETSCALE has
been offered for each of the three samples, the reader
would do well to treat this modification exercise an
exploratory exercise only. Kelloway (1998) cautions that
such post hoc modifications, which are empirically generated, must be cross-validated on independent samples.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
In India, overall, the CETSCALE behaves just as a scale
measuring consumer ethnocentrism should behave in
terms of internal consistency/reliability, divergent, and
nomological validity. But, the consumer ethnocentrism
concept, in at least two of the three groups examined,
University
Students
11
2,4,5,6,7,10
52.33
44
.18
.92
.88
.033
.16
.97
.83
.96
.66
.61
1
.8312
Senior Secondary
School Students
14
2,4,12
96.26
77
.068
.93
.91
.033
.20
.97
.86
.96
.73
.68
0
.8575
is not conceptually equivalent to the concept of consumer ethnocentrism prevailing in the US and other countries where the scale was found to be uni-dimensional.
In India, consumer ethnocentrism has more nuances
than in the developed countries of the West. What is
more, the results of EFA and the repeated CFA done to
obtain better versions of the scale indicate that the concept
of consumer ethnocentrism as understood by the three
different socio-demographic groups studied is also not
conceptually equivalent.
Proceeding with the examination of CETSCORES,
it was found that the Indian university students have
CETSCORES comparable not only to college/university
students in the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Poland but
also to the US. This challenges the viewpoint that consumer ethnocentrism is a phenomenon of the developed
world. All those who are prone to criticize the Indians
for their ‘craze’ for foreign goods should make a special
note of this finding. The Indians’ level of consumer
Table 12: Items Dropped in Modified Scales
Sr. No. in Brief Item Description*
CETSCALE
1.
2.
4.
5.
6.
7.
10.
12.
17.
Materials Management
Professionals
Always buy Indian made products
Import only unavailable products
Indian products always!
Purchasing foreign goods un-Indian
Employment impact
Real Indians buy Indian products
Import only necessary items
Curb all imports
Employment impact
University
Students
Senior Secondary
School Students
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x**
x
x
x
x
x
x
* For the full wording of the item see Appendix.
** ‘x’ indicates that the item was dropped.
54
CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
54
ethnocentrism is not less than that prevailing in a demographically similar group in a developed country like
the US. It would be wrong to view consumer ethnocentrism as a phenomenon of the developed world only.
The high consumer ethnocentrism among senior
secondary school students means that the ‘made in India’
tag is a valued one in the numerically very large younger
segment of the Indian market.
These findings should bring comfort to companies
whose products carry the ‘made in India’ label. In India,
this label is not a liability. The Indian consumers will
not lap up foreign goods merely because of their ‘made
in’ tags. The threat perception of freer imports into India
should be altered in the light of these findings. Strategic
decisions related to off-shore manufacturing should not
be made by the Indian companies merely to get a different ‘made in’ label. Foreign companies in India planning to sell goods manufactured on Indian soil rather
than imported from their plants abroad will also get
support for their actions from these findings. That the
young Indians (a numerically very large segment of the
market) are the most consumer ethnocentric of them all
points to a comfortable future for the ‘made in India’
label.
Socio-demographic variables fail to adequately
explain the phenomenon of consumer ethnocentrism.
While two of these variables, viz., income and SEC, are
related to consumer ethnocentrism in the sample of
senior secondary school students, a different variable,
viz., education, is related to consumer ethnocentrism in
the sample of university students, but none of the socio-
demographic variables is related to consumer ethnocentrism in the sample of materials management professionals. Even quality consciousness is not related to
consumer ethnocentrism.
DIRECTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
This research has been conducted in only one part of
India, a vast and heterogeneous country. None of the
scales used in this research had been previously tested
for validity and reliability. The sampling of materials
management professionals was not random.
While the initial work on refining the CETSCALE
for use in India has been done, this work needs to be
cross-validated on other samples. There needs to be
further investigation into the reasons for high consumer
ethnocentrism among the school students. More attitudinal and behavioural variables should be included
in further studies on consumer ethnocentrism.
Last of all but not the least, marketing literature
needs to pay more attention to the criticism of the concept
of ethnocentrism which Levine (2001) is constrained to
describe as ‘…a dated fallacy of early twentieth century
social sciences.’ Research in the emergent area of consumer animosity (Klein, Ettenson and Morris, 1998;
Nijssen, Douglas and Bressers, 2002) can help by examining the coexistence of consumer animosity with consumer affinity because, as Levine (2001) points out, the
boundaries between in group and out group are no
longer clear and stable and these are being blurred by
communication and migration.
Appendix: Constructs and their Items
The CETSCALE
1) Indian people should always buy Indian-made products instead
of imports.
2) Only those products that are unavailable in India should be
imported.
3) Buy Indian-made products, keep India working.
4) Indian products, first, last, and foremost.
5) Purchasing foreign made products is un-Indian.
6) It is not right to purchase foreign products because it puts
Indians out of jobs.
7) A real Indian should always buy Indian-made products.
8) We should purchase products manufactured in India instead
of letting other countries get rich off us.
9) It is always best to purchase Indian products.
10) There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from
other countries unless out of necessity.
11) Indians should not buy foreign products because it hurts Indian
business and causes unemployment.
12) Curbs should be put on all imports.
13)
It may cost me in the long run but I prefer to support Indian
products.
14) Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our
markets.
15) Foreign products should be taxed heavily to reduce their entry
into India.
16) We should obtain from foreign countries only those products
that we cannot obtain within our own country.
17) Indian consumers who purchase products made in other
countries are responsible for putting their fellow Indians out
of work.
Note: Items 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 16, and 17 are part of the
shorter 10-item version of the scale.
The Pseudopatriotism Scale
1)
2)
Patriotism and loyalty to the country are the first and most
important requirements of a good citizen.
Some forms of military training, obedience, and discipline such
as drill, marching, and simple commands should be made a
Contd.
55
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
55
Appendix Contd.
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
part of the elementary school educational programme.
Under our judicial system, the punishment awarded to those
who disobey the law of the land is very light.
Nepal can never advance to the level of India due mainly
to the innate laziness, lack of ambition, and general
backwardness of the Nepalese.
Pakistan can never advance to the level of India because it
has weak democratic institutions.
The main threat to basic Indian institutions comes from the
infiltration of foreign ideas, doctrines, and media.
The US is a war minded and power seeking country and the
international community should devise ways and means to
control it.
Pakistan is a rogue country and India needs to teach it a
lesson.
Only natural Indian citizens should have the right to hold office
under the Constitution of India.
Refugees from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, etc., may be in need
but it is a big mistake to allow them to enter our country.
When international matches are played in India, the audience
should not be allowed to wave flags of other countries.
The day India became a nuclear power was a great day for
India.
There will always be wars because, for one thing, there will
always be countries who ruthlessly try to grab more than their
share.
14)
Foreign companies should not be allowed in the Indian market
because in one way or the other they are robbing our country.
Note: This is a seven-point Likert scale.
For materials management professionals, 11-item version (minus
items 1, 2, and 5) was used. For university students, a 12-item
version (minus items 3 and 4) and for senior secondary school
students, all the 14-items were used.
The Image of Home Country Scale
1)
People are friendly and likeable.
2)
People are artistic and creative.
3)
People are well-educated.
4)
People are hard working.
5)
Places emphasis on technical education.
6)
People are proud to achieve high standards.
7)
People are motivated to raise standard of living.
8)
Technical skills of workforce are high.
9)
Country participates in international affairs.
Note: This is a 10-point Likert scale.
The Quality Consciousness Scale
1)
Getting very good quality is very important to me.
2)
When it comes to purchasing products, I try to get the perfect
choice.
3)
In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality products.
Note: This is a five-point Likert scale.
Belief in Foreign Made Products / Products Made in India
What is your belief about foreign-made products?
1) Poor value for money
1
2
2) Technically backward
1
2
3) Low quality
1
2
4) Unreliable
1
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
Good value for money
Technically advanced
High quality
Reliable
REFERENCES
Adorno, T W; Brunswick, Else Frenkel; Levinson, Daniel
S and Nevitt, Standford R (1950). The Authoritarian
Personality, New York : Harper and Row.
Agbonifoh, Barnabas A and Eliminian Jonathan U (1994).
“Attitudes of Developing Countries Towards ‘Countryof-origin’ Products in an Era of Multiple Brands,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 97-116.
Agrawal, Sunita (1994). Marketing Research, Delhi : Global
Business Press.
Ahmed, Kishwar (1979). “A Study of the Closed Mind in
Relation to Authoritarianism, Conservatism and Rigidity and Familial Antecedents within the Indian Context,” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Department of
Psychology, Panjab University.
Al-Sulaiti, Khalid I and Baker, Michael J (1998). “Country
of Origin Effects: A Literature Review,” Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(3), 130-199.
Batra, Rajeev; Ramaswamy, Venkatram; Alden, Dana L;
Steenkamp, Jan-Beneditct E M and Ramachander, S
(2000). “Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on
Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries,” Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 83-95.
Bearden, William O and Netemeyer, Richard G (1999).
Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-item Measures for
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Research, New York:
Sage Publications.
56
Churchill, Gillbert A, Jr (1979).”A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 16(1), 64-73.
Douglas, Susan P and Nijssen, Edwin J (2002). “On the
Use of ‘Borrowed’ Scales in Cross National Research:
A Cautionary Note,” International Marketing Review,
20(6), 621-642.
Durvasula, S, Andrews, J C and Netemeyer, R G (1997).
“A Cross-cultural Comparison of Consumer Ethnocentrism in the United States and Russia,” Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9(4), 73-79.
Garrett, Henry E (1966), Statistics in Psychology and Education, Bombay: Vakils, Feffer and Simons Ltd.
Good, Linda K and Huddleston, Patricia (1995). “Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian Consumers: Are Feelings and Intentions Related?” International Marketing
Review, 12(5), 35-48.
Goodwin, Stephen A; Purwar Prem C and Rogers, Martha
(1985). “An Experimental Investigation of the Communication Effectiveness of Interrogative versus Declaration Headlines for Print Advertisements,” Decision, OctDec, 163-170.
Herche, Joel (1992). “A Note on the Predictive Validity of
the CETSCALE,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 20, 261-264 as quoted in Herche (1994).
Herche, Joel (1994). “Ethnocentric Tendencies, Marketing
CONSUMER ETHNOCENTRISM
56
Strategy and Import Purchase Behaviour,” International
Marketing Review, 11(3), 4-16.
Johansson, Johny K, Douglas, Susan P and Nonaka, Ikujiro
(1985). “Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on
Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 22(4), 388-396.
Kelloway, E Kevin (1998). Using LISREL for Structural Equation Modeling: A Researcher’s Guide, New York: Sage
Publications.
Klein, Jill Gabrielle, Ettenson, Richard and Morris, Marlene
D (1998). “The Animosity Model of Foreign Product
Purchase: An Empirical Test in the Peoples Republic of
China,” Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 89-100.
La Barre, Polly (1994). “Quality’s Silent Prayer,” Industry
Week, 243(8), 47-48.
Levine, R A (2001). “Ethnocentrism,” in Smelser, Neil J and
Bates, Paul B (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the
Social and Behavioural Sciences, Vol 7, New York: Elsevier.
Lindquist, Jay D; Vida, Irena; Plank, Richard E and Fairhurst, Ann (2001). “The Modified CETSCALE: Validity
Tests in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland,”
International Business Review, 10 (5), 505-516.
Luque-Martínez, Teodoro, Ibanez-Zapata, Jose-Angel and
Barrico-García, Salvador del (2000). “Consumer Ethnocentrism Measurement: An Assessment of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE in Spain,” European
Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12), 1353-1373.
Malhotra, Naresh K (2001). Marketing Research: An Applied
Orientation. Pearson Education, Asia.
Mohammad, Osman, Ahmed, Zafar U; Earl D Honeycutt,
Jr and Tyebkhan, Taizoon Hyder (2000). “Does ‘Made
in …’ Matter to Consumers? A Malaysian Study of
Country of Origin Effect,” Multinational Business Review, 8(2), 69-73.
Netemeyer, Richard G, Durvasula, Srinivas and Lichtenstein Donald R (1991). “A Cross-national Assessment
of the Reliability and Validity of the CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 320-327.
Nielsen, James A and Spence, Mark T (1997). “A Test of
the Stability of the CETSCALE, A Measure of Consumer’s Ethnocentric Tendencies,” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 5(4), 68-76.
Nijssen, Edwin J, Douglas, Susan P and Bressers, Paul
(2002). “Attitudes Towards the Purchase of Foreign
Products: Extending the Model,” Working paper, Stern
School of Business.
Okechuku, Chike (1994). “The Importance of Product
Country of Origin: A Conjoint Analysis of the United
States, Canada, Germany and the Netherlands,” European Journal of Marketing, 28(4), 5-19.
Papadopoulos, Nicolas, Heslop, Louise A and Beraes, Jozsef
(1990). “National Stereotypes and Product Evaluations
in a Socialist Country,” International Marketing Review,
7(1), 32-47.
Parmeswaran, Ravi and Pisharodi, Mohan R (1994). “Facets
of Country of Origin Image: An Empirical Assessment,”
Journal of Advertising 23(1), 44-56.
Sharma, Subhash (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques,
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Shimp, Terence A and Sharma, Subhash (1987). “Consumer
Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the
CETSCALE,” Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280289.
Sproles, George B and Kendall, Elizabeth (1986). “A
Methodology for Profiling Consumers’ Decision Making Styles,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20(2), 267-279
as quoted in Bearden and Netemeyer (1999).
Steenkamp, J E M and Baumgartner, H (1998). “Assessing
Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer
Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78-90 as
quoted in Lindquist et al., 2001.
Sumner, W G (1906). Folkways: The Sociological Importance
of Usages, Manners, Customs, Mores and Morals, New
York: Geni and Co. as quoted in Luque-Martínez, Ibanez-Zapata and Barrico-Garcia, (2000).
Tansey R, Carroll, Ray F and Lin Jun Z (2001). “On Measuring Cost of Quality Dimensions: An Exploratory Study
in the People’s Republic of China,” International Business Review, 10(2), 175-195.
Varma, Pavan K (1998). The Great Indian Middle Class, New
Delhi : Viking.
Vida, I and Fairhurst, A (1999). “Factors Underlying the
Phenomenon of Consumer Ethnocentricity: Evidence
for Four Central European Countries,” The International
Review of Retail Distribution and Consumer Research, 90(4),
321-337.
Anupam Bawa is Reader at the Unviersity Business School, Panjab
University, Chandigarh. She did her MBA from Panjab University,
Chandigarh and Ph.D. from Punjabi University, Patiala. Her
research work has been published in some of the leading
management journals of the country.
e-mail: [email protected]
57
VIKALPA • VOLUME 29 • NO 3 • JULY - SEPTEMBER 2004
57