Samantha N.N. Cross & Mary C.

Gilly

Cultural Competence and Cultural

Compensatory Mechanisms in
Binational Households
Although it is well-known that the U.S. population is increasingly culturally diverse, cultural diversity within U.S.
households is less recognized. This study investigates the effects of cultural dynamics on decision roles and
influence within the binational household. In particular, the authors study households in which one spouse is from
the United States and the other is an immigrant. The analysis uses survey data and in-depth interviews. Cultural
competence (i.e., knowledge of country of residence) as a source of expert power and as a form of cultural capital
in family decision making emerge as overarching themes. The authors also find that one family member may
engage in cultural compensatory mechanisms in consumption in response to the immigrant family member’s
sacrifices (i.e., moving to the United States). The authors close with a discussion of the implications for family
decision-making theory, marketers, and society.

Keywords: family decision making, expertise, cultural competence, cross-cultural, cultural compensatory
mechanisms

“...for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sick-
ness and in health, to love and to cherish, [in my country
or in yours?]”
In the early 1950s, one of the most popular television
sitcoms in U.S. history aired, starring Lucille Ball and her
real-life husband Desi Arnaz as Lucy and Ricky Ricardo. I
Love Lucy is considered an American television classic
today; yet at the time, the networks were hesitant to feature
a sitcom starring an American of Scottish ancestry married
to a Cuban bandleader, as network producers felt that view-
ers would not believe that Arnaz was truly Ball’s husband
(Andrews 1985; Brooks and Marsh 2003). The academic
literature has mirrored this perspective. Although researchers
increasingly recognized the household as a critical and
central decision-making and consumption unit (Commuri
and Gentry 2000; Davis 1976), they also made a crucial
underlying assumption about family composition: cultural
homogeneity.
The foreign-born population of the United States has
burgeoned since the passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965.
Samantha N.N. Cross is Assistant Professor of Marketing, College of
When I Love Lucy was introduced in 1951, the foreign-born
population was less than 7%, dropping to its nadir of 4.7%
(9.6 million) in the 1970 census (Malone et al. 2003). How-
ever, since the Hart-Celler Act removed race-based restric-
tions on immigration, the number of foreign-born residents
in the United States has steadily increased to more than
12% (36.7 million) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). The rate of
intermarriage between immigrants and natives in the United
States still remains below the marriage rate between immi-
grants who were born in the same country. Yet the increas-
ing number of immigrants has clearly had an impact. Bean
and Stevens’s (2003) analysis of 1995 U.S. Census data
reveals that 29% of foreign-born men had U.S.-born wives
and 33% of foreign-born women had U.S.-born husbands.
In light of this demographic reality, it is evident that bina-
tional households (with partners from different countries)
are a new, unique, and relevant context for an investigation
of consumer decision making and influence.
Epp and Price (2008) suggest that family consumption
research has also ignored the notion that households act as
collective enterprises. In their study of family identity, they
argue that the focus on the relative influence of individual
spouses has led researchers to ignore family “collective iden-

tity tensions” (Epp and Price 2011, p. 38). The challenges of

Business, Iowa State University (e-mail: snncross@iastate.edu). Mary C.

“being a family” are viewed as central to the consumption

Gilly is Professor of Marketing, The Paul Merage School of Business, Uni-

experiences of contemporary families; such challenges, we

versity of California, Irvine (e-mail: mcgilly@uci.edu). The authors grate-

argue, are exacerbated by the cultural heterogeneity within

fully acknowledge financial support to the first author through the Ray

binational families.
Watson Doctoral Fellowship at University of California, Irvine, and through

This research extends knowledge on household decision

the Academy of Marketing Science Jane K. Fenyo Best Paper Award for
Student Research. The first author thanks her family for their unwavering

making, focusing on binational households. Here, one part-

support of her research. The authors also thank their colleagues Terry

ner in the household is an immigrant to the United States—

Childers, John Graham, Hope Schau, Maura Scott, and Bill Qualls for

born and raised in another country and immigrated to the

their critical feedback and encouragement, as well as three anonymous

United States after high school. The other partner is a U.S.

JM reviewers for their guidance throughout the review process. Robert
Kozinets served as area editor for this article.

© 2014, American Marketing Association Journal of Marketing

ISSN: 0022-2429 (print), 1547-7185 (electronic) 121 Vol. 78 (May 2014), 121–139
citizen—born and raised in the United States, the family’s
country of residence.
We ask the following key research questions: (1) What
is the individual and collective impact of cultural diversity
in binational homes? (2) What contributes to relative influ-
ence and drives the allocations of decision-making roles?
and (3) How do the decisions that prevail in the formative
stages of the household affect decisions made in later stages
of the household? We intend to examine not only who
makes decisions but also the context in which decisions are
made, during both the formative and maintenance stages of
the household. This research thus challenges another
implicit assumption in the family decision-making literature
stream, which to date has presumed that household decision
making takes place only after the household exists. We take
a discovery-oriented approach, using a mixed-method
embedded design for data collection (Creswell and Plano
Clark 2011). This multiperspective approach enhances con-
textual understanding, corroborates the completeness of the
findings, and assists in illustrating the quantitative results
with the qualitative findings (Bryman 2006).
We empirically demonstrate that relative cultural compe-
tence (i.e., knowledge of the traditions, social norms, mar-
kets, language, and expections of the culture of residence)
in culturally heterogeneous households is both a source of
expertise and a form of cultural capital. Our findings com-
plicate the conceptualization of gender roles and conjugal
power found in prior research. We also show that household
decision roles and relative influence at various stages of the
household are interrelated and often counterbalanced. Alter-
native strategies to emphasize the immigrant spouse’s con-
sumption preferences and enhance the relevance of the
immigrant spouse’s culture within the home—“cultural
compensatory mechanisms”—are revealed. These cultural
compensatory mechanisms are used to even out perceptions
of “sacrifice,” highlighting the need for a more holistic
approach to the study of family decision making. Our find-
ings have implications for expanding family decision-making
theory and furthering understanding of the adaptation patterns
of immigrant populations in the United States. Our results
will also help managerial and political decision makers
appreciate the dynamics involved in cross-cultural interac-
tions in the most fundamental group: the family.
In this article, we present our theoretical framework,
followed by our methodology. We provide a detailed analy-
sis and discussion of the findings and highlight the main
themes and implications stemming from the study.
Theoretical Framework
Binational and Bicultural Partnerships
Although there is an increasing body of research on bicul-
tural consumers, the emphasis has been on immigrant
groups and their ability to traverse and balance cultural
norms and identity-related expectations in their home and
host countries (Lau-Gesk 2003; Luna, Ringberg, and Perac-
chio 2008; Oswald 1999; Park 2005). Acculturation occurs
as a result of two cultures coming into contact with subse-
quent changes in the cultural patterns of both groups (Red-
122 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
field, Linton and Herskovits 1936). At the group level,
acculturation has received a great deal of attention in
anthropology (Rudmin 2003), although individual accultur-
ation (sometimes called transculturation) has received less
notice. In consumer research, there are a few studies on the
impact of culture on the consumption decisions of mono-
cultural immigrant families (Peñaloza and Gilly 1986,
1999; Wallendorf and Reilly 1983b; Webster 2000) and a
few articles on the role of culture within binational families
and partnerships (Lauth Bacas 2002; Nelson and Desh-
pande 2004; Nelson and Otnes 2005).
Nelson and Deshpande (2004) examine the decision
making of binational couples in wedding planning, extend-
ing cultural ambivalence (Merton and Barber 1976) to
cross-cultural ambivalence, defined as a mixed emotional
state arising from conflict between two cultures. They find
that binational couples modify wedding rituals and try to
accommodate different ritual audiences (parents and friends
from each culture). Integrating multiple cultural elements
into one ceremony results in greater creativity, as Breger
and Hill (1998) also note in other contexts. Nelson and
Otnes’s (2005) netnography of postings on wedding mes-
sage boards indicates that binational couples use compro-
mise to cope with conflicts concerning various wedding
elements. While studies of brides and grooms with subcul-
tural differences (Otnes, Lowrey, and Shrum 1997) have
found similar coping mechanisms, Nelson and Otnes (2005)
attribute cross-cultural brides’ wider range of coping
mechanisms to the complexity of their task. Note that these
studies examine binational couples solely at the formative
stage of the family, and only in the context of one event.
In her research on cross-border marriages between
Greek–German couples, Lauth Bacas (2002) notes that
binational partners must develop coping strategies to deal
with disparate family networks as well as specific compe-
tencies such as tolerance, patience, and the ability to find
and live with compromise. These couples face both a need
and an opportunity to create a common family culture that
bridges their cultural differences. Meng and Gregory (2005,
p. 1) define intermarriage as a union of an immigrant with a
non-English-speaking background and a native. They sug-
gest that in Australia, through intermarriage, immigrants
acquire “host country customs, language skills, knowledge
of the local labour market, and obtain contacts and connec-
tions,” speeding economic assimilation. They find signifi-
cantly higher incomes for immigrants who intermarry ver-
sus immigrants who do not. We argue that, in addition to a
labor market advantage, intermarriage offers a consumption
advantage because immigrants who intermarry learn the
consumer market as well. In her study of children of Asian
immigrants, Park (2005) documents an important role for
consumption in creating an American household identity.
Cross and Gilly (2013a) note that binational families act as
links between cultures, both within and outside the house-
hold, and provide a setting for decision making and creative
consumption.
Family Decision Making
For 50 years, research in household decision making focused
on the influence of gender on decision-making roles (Davis
1970; Green and Cunningham 1975; Shuptrine and Samuel-
son 1976) and the decision-making process (Davis and
Rigaux 1974; Putnam and Davidson 1987). Wilk and Net-
ting (1984, p. 2) argue that “as a culturally defined emic
unit, the household is certainly of analytic value.” Studies
on household decision making have been conducted in dif-
ferent countries (Davis and Rigaux 1974; Webster 2000), as
researchers have discovered that marital roles differ across
cultures (Green et al. 1983). However, these non–North
American studies remained culturally homogeneous within
the family units studied.
Research has shown that the base of conjugal power in a
particular household often drives gender differences in mari-
tal roles (Blood and Wolfe 1960; Raven, Centers, and
Rodrigues 1975; Wolfe 1959). These gender differences
have evolved over time as marital roles have become more
egalitarian (Belch and Willis 2002; Lackman and Lanasa
1993; Qualls 1987). Commuri and Gentry (2000, p. 10) criti-
cize this literature stream for suggesting that many family
decisions are “either/or” without recognizing that these
decisions “not only constitute conscious choice, but also
incorporate a shared consensus, mutual trust, and a desire to
maintain harmony.” Epp and Price (2008) support this cri-
tique, contending that the family research literature has
ignored the notion that households act as collective enter-
prises and experience the dynamics and tensions manifest
in any collective identity. Economic capital as a source of
conjugal power has also been overemphasized in the family
decision-making literature stream, to the detriment of con-
sidering other forms of capital.
Expertise and Capital in the Home
A major focus of the family decision-making research has
been the power that stems from the economic capital the
spouses contribute, with a proliferation of theories such as
resource theory (Blood and Wolfe 1960), social power
theory, and gender- or category-based theories (Davis 1970;
Qualls 1987). It is argued that shifts in power occur as a
result of shifts in economic resources. Thus, greater egali-
tarianism in decision making in the home coincided with
women joining the workforce (Lackman and Lanasa 1993;
Putnam and Davidson 1987).
Bases of power have been categorized as coercive,
reward-based, legitimate, referent, and expert (Belch and
Willis 2002; Raven, Centers, and Rodrigues 1975; Webster
2000). Expert power is relevant here and is defined as the
power that comes from reliance on a family member’s supe-
rior knowledge and experience. Expertise as a source of
power is also based on trust and the belief that the particular
family member indeed possesses substantial knowledge or
experience (French and Raven 1959; Raven 1992; Raven,
Schwarzwald, and Koslowsky 1998).
Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital—defined
as assets in the form of one’s talents and intellect (embodied
state), cultural goods (objectified state), and educational
qualifications (institutionalized state)—is relevant here. The
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 123
family decision-making literature stream has focused on
economic sources of power, ignoring the power and status
that cultural knowledge bestows. Robbins (2005) examines
the development of Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital,
concluding that Bourdieu’s interest was in understanding
cultural tastes and the use of objective culture. We argue
that the understanding of one’s culture of residence in gen-
eral, not merely understanding cultural tastes, is also an asset
that confers power in decision making within the family.
Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of cultural capital has been
investigated extensively in educational sociology. DiMaggio
and Mohr’s (1985) influential longitudinal study examines
the effects of status-culture participation on educational
attainment and marital selection. The authors operationalize
cultural capital as participation in high culture (e.g., attend-
ing symphony concerts, arts events, having a “cultivated
self-image”). Other authors have used similar operational-
izations of cultural capital to investigate outcomes such as
educational attainment (De Graaf 1986) and English lan-
guage achievement (Khodadady, Alaee, and Natanzi 2011).
Kingston (2001) questions the way scholars have
applied cultural capital theory in education research, calling
it “the unfulfilled promise.” Lareau and Weininger (2003, p.
587) are critical of what they call the “dominant interpreta-
tion” of cultural capital as competence in “high-brow” aes-
thetic culture, deeming it a narrower definition than Bour-
dieu intended: “the critical aspect of cultural capital is that
it allows culture to be used as a resource that provides
access to scarce rewards, is subject to monopolization, and,
under certain conditions, may be transmitted from one gen-
eration to the next.” We agree that previous literature has
conceptualized cultural capital too narrowly, ignoring the
resources that accrue to people who have a deep under-
standing of the culture in which they reside.
We suggest that understanding the dominant culture in
terms of day-to-day norms and expectations—what we term
“cultural competence”—is a basic form of cultural capital
that is readily available to people raised in that culture and
at least partially hidden from nonnatives. Although such
knowledge may lead to understanding high culture (e.g.,
becoming familiar with Chinese opera when living in
China), we argue that understanding how Norwegians shop
for bread in Norway or the basics of cricket in India is also
a form of cultural capital and a source of expertise. Lan-
guage can also be a form of cultural capital (Blackledge
2001). Immigrants find their cultural knowledge lacking
when engaging in consumption activities such as shopping,
eating, and socializing. Those who possess cultural compe-
tence are advantaged in daily life both outside and within
the home.
Wilk (1989, p. 30) criticizes consumer research for
elaborating particular concepts and tools to understand
household decision making “in a narrowly defined cultural
context,” and yet little has improved in the ensuing years.
Commuri and Gentry (2005) also advocate attention to the
diversity of household forms (e.g., households in which
wives are breadwinners, second marriages), which we
extend to include culturally diverse households. By examin-
ing binational households, we expose the role of cultural
competence as a dimension of expert power and a form of
cultural capital. In addition, we record efforts to creatively
address cultural differences.
Our focus is on family decision making in binational
families, in which we find that cultural competence influ-
ences the allocation of decision roles. Cultural competence
can be considered a type of cultural capital in that resources
are more available to those who possess it.
Methodology
Data for the study were collected through surveys and 60-
to 90-minute in-depth interviews with spouses in binational
households. Data were collected from 16 couples and 2 indi-
vidual spouses whose partners were unable to participate.
The 18 families consist of 10 immigrant women married to
U.S. men and 8 immigrant men married to U.S. women.
The study uses a purposive sample, and spouses were inter-
viewed separately and consecutively. The sample included
participants from key immigrant groups in the United States
(Filipino and Mexican) as well as participants from a wider
range of countries: Taiwan, Chile, Australia, Iran, Belarus,
Vietnam, and South Africa. The split by gender and nation-
ality was driven by availability and the demographic char-
acteristics of out-marriage (i.e., marriage outside one’s eth-
nic group) in the United States. Breger and Hill (1998, p. 2)
argue that “there are features common to almost all cross-
cultural marriages,” even when comparing very different
cultural contexts. The 34 participants all have at least some
college education and reside in middle-class neighborhoods
with incomes ranging from $45,000 to $113,000. Table 1
provides a profile of the interview participants.
At the beginning of the interview sessions, participants
completed a survey that asked about the decision maker in
the household for different aspects of the decision-making
process for 15 product categories. Categories are based on
questionnaires used by Davis and Rigaux (1974) and Put-
nam and Davidson (1987), who viewed these categories as
representative of the larger group of economically conse-
quential decisions within families. The survey was used to
assist informants in thinking about the subject matter, facil-
itate further discussion, and gather crucial decision-making
data about decision roles within these families. This mixed-
method embedded design (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011)
enabled us to collect both quantitative and qualitative data
within a single participant interaction.
We mapped the survey data using the perceptual mapping
technique (feasibility triangle) originally suggested by Wolfe
(1959) and later employed by Davis and Rigaux (1974).
The vertical axis of the triangle represents the relative influ-
ence of the husband and wife in the decision, ranging from
husband-dominant = 1, joint = 2, to wife-dominant = 3, as
indicated by the participant. The horizontal axis shows the
extent of role specialization as measured by the percentage
of families reporting that a decision is jointly made. The
two axes converge at a point 2, 100%; the triangular feasi-
bility region reflects that the axes are nonindependent.
Mapping the data enables us to easily gauge both the aver-
age relative influence and extent of role specialization for
each decision as well as similarity or dissimilarity among
124 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
decisions with respect to marital roles. The locations of the
decisions on the triangle are based on an average across the
four aspects of the decision process as well as across par-
ticipants. Decisions for which the mean relative influence is
1.5 or less are husband-dominant, 2.5 or more are wife-
dominant, and between 1.5 and 2.5 are joint: either syn-
cratic (defined as more than 50% of families surveyed make
a decision jointly) or autonomic (less than 50% of families
make a decision jointly). The decision phases (syncratic or
autonomic) can have implications for the type of hierarchi-
cal models and communication strategies to be used for
these families (Davis and Rigaux 1974). The feasibility tri-
angle represents the theoretical distribution of husband–
wife authority relationships. The greater the shared author-
ity, the more equal the relative authority of the husband and
wife.
Analysis of the interview data followed the grounded
theory approach, using differing levels of coding and an
iterative back-and-forth process between the emerging cate-
gories and the literature to make sense of the data and
develop themes (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Locke 1996;
Strauss and Corbin 1998). Our emphasis is on acquiring
deep insights into binational families, their decision mak-
ing, and the processes by which these households accom-
modate cultural preferences. Our ultimate aim is to generate
theory about culture’s influence on family decision making
and consumption.
As part of a follow-up study, we interviewed six addi-
tional adult participants, two men and four women, who
grew up in binational homes in the United States. These
participants had parents from Ghana and the United States,
Germany and the United States, Japan and the United
States, and Nigeria and the United States. These partici-
pants described their childhood, current experiences, and
the influence of the dual cultures on their consumption,
societal interactions, and perceptions of identity. We used
these additional data to explicate some of the findings in
this study. We audiotaped all interviews and later tran-
scribed and extensively reviewed the interview data.
Decision-Making Roles and
Influence
Survey responses showed spousal agreement at an average
of 70% and 73% for the decision categories of “when to
purchase” and “what to purchase,” respectively, and 67%
and 65% for the decision categories of “where to purchase”
and “how much to pay.” This result is consistent with prior
literature using similar types of decision categories (Davis
and Rigaux 1974; Putnam and Davidson 1987). Decisions
involving other groceries, vehicles, children’s toys/clothing,
and children’s schools/colleges had the highest levels of
agreement (same), whereas decisions on computer-related
equipment had the lowest agreement levels (different) (see
Table 2).
Figure 1 plots the mean relative influence of all 15 deci-
sion categories across all participants. Although they are not
generalizable due to the small size and purposive nature of
the sample, the decision plots suggest a high degree of joint
 TABLE 1
Participant Profiles
Cultural Identity Immigrant Spouse

Participant Country of Perception of Age Years in Years of

Couple Name Origin Self Report Children’s Identity Gender (Years) Citizen United States Marriage Children Residence
1 Alonso Mexico Mexican Mexican American Male 41 Yes 20 10 Yes Orange County, CA
Edith United States American American Female 47 Yes N.A.
2 Gillian Philippines Filipino Filipino American Female 41 Yes 20 13 Yes Orange County, CA
3 Hannah Philippines Non-American Citizens of the world Female 41 No 20 11 Yes Orange County, CA
John United States American No label, just people Male 50 Yes N.A.
4 Lanna United States American Mexican American Female 40 Yes N.A. 11 Yes Orange County, CA
Jorge Mexico Mexican Mexican American Male 40 Yes 15
5 Candice United States American American Female 42 Yes N.A. 20 Yes Orange County, CA
6 Cassie Philippines Filipino American American Filipino Female 39 Yes 22 9 Yes Orange County, CA
Ed United States Filipino American American Filipino Male 38 Yes N.A.
7 Jim United States Filipino Filipino American, fused Male 41 Yes N.A. 1 Expecting Honolulu, HI
w/local Hawaiian values
Sarah Philippines Filipino —c Female 31 No 2
8 Julio Mexico Mexican American with Male 53 No 24 23 Yes Orange County, CA
Mexican roots
Sally United States American —c Female 59 Yes N.A.
9 Terry United States American Filipino Black American Male 49 Yes N.A. 15a Yes Los Angeles
County, CA
Ria Philippines Filipino Filipino American Female 44 Yesb 28 6
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 125

10 Rosa United States Mexican American Mexican American Female 26 Yes N.A. 6 Yes Orange County, CA
David Mexico Mexican American Mexican American Male 32 Yes 14
11 Leila Taiwan Asian American American Female 48 Yes 17 17 Yes Orange County, CA
Kenny United States Irish Chinese American Male 51 Yes N.A.
12 Simone Chile Chilean and American American Female 28 No 4 4 Yes Orange County, CA
Charlie United States Caucasian Caucasian Male 28 Yes N.A.
13 Sharon United States White/Caucasian White/Caucasian Female 38 Yes N.A. 7 Yes Orange County, CA
Colin Australia Caucasian or Australian Australian American Male 34 No 9
14 Karen United States Caucasian Caucasian Female 36 Yes N.A. 5 Yes Orange County, CA
Alan Iran White/Caucasian American Male 45 Yes 23
15 Leona Former Soviet Caucasian Caucasian Female 31 Yes 10 2 Yes Orange County, CA
Union, now Belarus
Simon United States Caucasian Not sure Male 35 Yes N.A.
16 Liang Vietnam Chinese Half Chinese, Female 48 Yes 19 10 Yes Orange County, CA
half American
Daniel United States Caucasian Asian and Caucasian Male 47 Yes N.A.
17 Linda United States White not Hispanic White/American Female 45 Yes N.A. 8 Yes Orange County, CA
Gerald South Africa Caucasian Caucasian Male 42 Yes 8
18 Kent United States Caucasian Japanese or Asian or Male 30 Yes N.A. 5 Yes Orange County, CA
more than one ethnicity
Tokimi Japan Japanese Japanese American Female 36 No 8
aRespondent seems to be including number of years of cohabitation before marriage.
bNaturalized citizen at birth through father.
cRespondent did not provide this response.
Notes: N.A. = not applicable. Participants’ names have been disguised.
 TABLE 2
Response Agreement Between Spouses
When to Purchase? Where to Purchase? What to Purchase? How Much to Pay?

Same Different Same Different Same Different Same Different

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Food 63 38 69 31 56 44 56 44
Other grocery items 81 19 88 13 75 25 81 19
Small appliances 75 25 63 38 56 44 56 44
Major appliances 81 19 67 33 67 33 67 33
Computer equipment 53 47 47 53 53 47 53 47
Furniture 69 26 69 31 63 38 56 44
Vehicles 94 6 69 31 88 13 75 25
Home decorations/decor 60 40 50 50 69 31 44 56
Music 60 40 57 43 71 29 57 43
Children’s toys and clothing 88 13 69 31 75 25 75 25
Children’s schools/colleges 80 20 73 27 87 13 73 27
Investments and savings plans 69 31 75 25 81 19 81 19
Insurance (life, auto, home) 69 31 69 31 69 31 69 31
Vacations/family trips 69 31 73 27 75 25 69 31
Capital improvements/remodeling 80 20 67 33 71 29 57 43
Average agreement 73 27 67 33 70 30 65 35
Notes: Responses are from 16 families. This table does not include responses from surveys with only one spouse or responses for couples
with missing data for the particular question in a category.

FIGURE 1
Decisions for 18 Binational Families Surveyed

3.0

Wife-
Dominant Home decorations/decor

Children’s toys and

clothing

2.5

Relative Influence of Husbands and Wives

Other groceries
Food

Small appliances
Children’s schools/college
Furniture
Syncratic Vacation Autonomic
Major appliances
Investments
Vehicles Capital exp./remodeling
Insurance
Music

Computer equipment

1.5

Husband-Dominant
1.0
100% 50% 0%
Extent of Role Specialization

126 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

decision making—both autonomic and syncratic—within FIGURE 2
these families. Influence of the husbands and wives is shared Decisions for Families
in all but 2 of the 15 decisions. Greater egalitarianism is
A: Families with Immigrant Wife and American
consistent with the findings of Putnam and Davidson (1987),
Husband
who compare the Davis and Rigaux (1974) study with their
study for 12 data points. They hypothesized that over the
ten or more years following the Davis and Rigaux study, 3.0
D

movement away from sex-role-dominated decision making

Relative Influence of Husbands and Wives

toward more joint decisions reflected women’s increased
Wife-Dominant

resources and corresponding shifts toward egalitarianism.

Our data show a complete shift away from husband-
Other grocery

2.5
dominant decisions, and yet the wife still retains a dominant
Children’s toys and clothing Food

Home decorations/Decor

influence over children’s toys and clothing and home deco-

rations and decor. The data also portray a heavier influence
Small appliances

of the wife over decisions regarding food and other gro-

ceries, a reflection of the prevailing roles of the wives in
C s/college Vacation Autonomic
Syncratic Furniture Major appliances

this study as primary caretakers of children and home, as

Vehicles
Investments Insurance

1.5
the interviews confirm. The main decision over which hus-
Capital exp./Remodeling
Music

bands still have a higher relative influence is computer

Computer equipment

equipment. 1.0
Husband-Dominant

Data were then divided between families with American 100% 50% 0%
husbands and immigrant wives and families with immigrant Extent of Role Specialization
husbands and American wives. Our analysis again shows
that husbands and wives tend to share influence over deci- B: Families with Immigrant Husband and American
sions, as evidenced by the large proportion of joint decisions Wife
depicted in both triangles in Figure 2, Panels A and B. In
addition, decisions regarding children’s toys and clothing and 3.0
D

home decor still tend to be wife dominant, whereas deci-

Relative Influence of Husbands and Wives

sions regarding computer equipment still have a relatively
Wife-Dominant

greater husband influence. These findings are consistent

Home decorations/Decor

with the overall mapping across the families in Figure 1. 2.5

Children’s toys & clothing

In the realm of shared influence, the pattern of decisions

differs. Within the immigrant husband/American wife fami-
lies, we observe less dispersion and a stronger balance of
Children䇻s schools/college Investments

wife–husband influence across role specialization for joint

Small appliances
Other grocery
Major appliances Insurance

decisions versus the American husband/immigrant wife

Vacation
Syncratic Food
Furniture Capital Exp/Remodeling
Autonomic
Music

households. Decisions regarding food purchases and other

Vehicles

Computer equipment

groceries are wife dominant in the American husband/

1.5
immigrant wife households but remain a joint decision in
the immigrant husband/American wife households. Deci- 1.0
sions regarding investments, insurance, capital expendi-
Husband-Dominant

tures, and remodeling show a greater husband influence in
the American husband/immigrant wife households but have
a stronger wife influence in the immigrant husband/Ameri-
can wife families. These findings differ from Figure 1 and
from those of prior literature. The interview data provide
additional insights into product categories for which differ-
ences are most distinct between the two types of binational
families: investment decisions and food purchasing.
Investment Decisions
In the American husband/immigrant wife households,
investment and insurance decisions are either handled
jointly or by the husband. One reason for this allocation is
the woman’s role in these households. Seven of the ten
immigrant wives interviewed in these households no longer
work outside the home. Role allocation in these households
tends to be gender based, with money earned by the male
spouse, who also tends to handle investment and insurance
100% 50% 0%
Extent of Role Specialization
decisions, consistent with prior literature (Childers and Fer-
rell 1981; Davis and Rigaux 1974). The wife handles
investment and insurance decisions in only one American
husband/immigrant wife household, in which the wife
works in the accounting/finance field.
Jim (American husband) has been married to Sarah
(immigrant wife) for one year. He notes that for investments
and savings plans, he tends to make the decisions because
he is the one working:
Yes, and that is more a function of my work and because
they offer these incentives and programs … built into the
employment package. So it is more a matter of practicality
rather than anything else.
However, in four of the eight immigrant husband/
American wife households, the wives handle the investment

Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 127

decisions. In two of the remaining four households, invest-
ment decisions are handled jointly. Both spouses work out-
side the home in the eight immigrant husband/American
wife households. Couples choose this household style for
several reasons, including prior experience, the origin of the
investments (earned vs. inherited), knowledge of the pre-
vailing tax laws, and investment norms and prior estab-
lished relationships. Edith (American wife) notes,
[My husband] has some of his own investments, but my
income is substantially greater than his, and he just lets
me invest my stuff myself. We talk about it, but he would
never say, “Do this” or “Don’t do this.”... It’s really up to
me.
Alonso (her immigrant husband), corroborates her statement:
Yeah, it’s because when I met her, she always had some-
body doing that and I just didn’t want to. She was fine,
and the person [handling her investments] knew her very
well.
Food Purchase Decisions
The data depicted in Figures 2 and 3 reveal that food pur-
chases are wife-dominant decisions in American husband/
immigrant wife households but remain a joint decision in
immigrant husband/American wife households. Our inter-
views revealed that either the immigrant spouse shops or
both spouses shop together. In seven of the ten American
husband/immigrant wife households, the wife does the
shopping, both to meet her culinary needs and those of her
American spouse and family. However, in six of the eight
immigrant husband/American wife households, both spouses
play a role in meeting the differing culinary needs of the
family. Karen (American wife) hates grocery shopping, but
as she discusses food purchase and preparation roles, it is
clear that it is a shared process with her Iranian spouse:
I’m largely responsible for what we need. And for getting
it out of the fridge and onto the table. And he’s in charge
of getting it into the house.... I get it from the fridge to the
table; he gets it to the fridge.
Interviews indicate that food purchase is primarily
linked to food preparation. Yet meals in binational families
often reflect different cultural backgrounds. The immigrant
wife knows how to prepare the dishes from her home coun-
try and learns to prepare those of her husband. However, for
several American wives, the dishes of their immigrant hus-
bands, while tolerated, may be regarded with disfavor. For
example, Karen describes her immigrant husband’s weekly
yogurt drinks as “vile.” Linda also dislikes the South
African delicacy Bovril (a beef or yeast extract spread),
even though it is one of her immigrant husband’s “must-
have” purchase items in their home. Lanna (American wife)
explains,
Like, he will make seafood soup every great once in a
while and put [in] octopus and all these weird little things
that I won’t eat, but [my daughter] will just pick out the
octopus and eat it. And [my son] will have nothing to do
with it, like me.

FIGURE 3
The Decision Chain

Formative Stage of Household

Decisions Regarding:

•! Whom to marry

•! Where to wed

•! Where to reside
Level of
Cultural Competence

Basis for Role Allocation

Source of Expertise
Form of Cultural Capital

Native spouse Relative Influence Immigrant spouse

Later Stage of Household

Cultural Compensatory
Decisions Regarding:
Mechanisms

Acquiring Food Items •! Where to vacation

Language Exposure
Facilitating Trips •! Which schools to choose

•! What to eat

128 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014

Thus, immigrant husbands purchase and prepare food to
meet their own culinary needs.
The results of the decision-making survey, together with
the interview data related to those decisions, confirm that
decision-making roles and role allocations in binational
families differ from the monocultural families studied by
Davis and Rigaux (1974) and Putnam and Davidson (1987).
In addition, American husband/immigrant wife households
differ in important ways from American wife/immigrant
husband households. Using the in-depth interviews, we next
identify the important themes revealed about binational
families.
Cultural Competence
Cultural Competence, Expert Power, and Cultural
Capital
Interviews reveal the bases for the allocation of decision-
making roles identified in the survey. In their discussions of
decision-making roles, participants suggest that a mixture
of factors are important: gender, knowledge, convenience,
experience, interest, consensus, and expertise. This finding
overlaps with the bases of conjugal power established in the
literature. Expert power, in particular, is described as “the
belief that one family member has superior knowledge or
ability which will result in the best possible outcome” (Belch
and Willis 2002, p. 114). Attribution of expert power has
also been shown to increase with education, social class, and
more joint decision making. Yet the cultural dynamic per-
vading these binational households suggests another source
of expert power: cultural competence. Participants identified
situational factors, such as location or country of residence,
as a basis for allocating decision-making roles. Some par-
ticipants believed that expertise, experience, or personality
would override situational factors, leaving decision-making
roles unaffected by country of residence. However, most
couples interviewed believe that the country of residence is
a crucial factor. They suggest that their current roles are
based at least in part on their choice to reside in the United
States and the native spouse’s greater familiarity with the
system and culture of the United States.
Sharon (American wife), who has an accounting back-
ground, maintains that both her background and the culture
of residence of her family play a role in allocating decision-
making roles:
A lot of times if it’s me it’s because of my background,
what I do for a living, or because I grew up here. I have
some special knowledge that he doesn’t have.
Charlie (American husband), married to Simone (Chilean
wife), states,
I think a lot of the decision making came down to the fact
that this is my home country and when we need to get cer-
tain things like small appliances or things like that, I have
a better understanding of the products here.
Simone succinctly concurs: “He knows more than me, and
better.” John (American husband) compares himself to a
blind man and notes that if he and his family ever moved to
the Philippines, where his wife was born, he would rely
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 129
more on her decision making: “She would need to be my
seeing-eye dog in certain ways.” Simon (American hus-
band) is the dominant decision maker in his home. Yet even
he acknowledges that his role in the home is tied to his
knowledge of the United States: “In a lot of respects, some-
times, I am the guy for us here because I know how things
work.”
Several of the countries from which our sample’s spouses
(male and female) immigrated—including Mexico, the
Philippines, Taiwan, Chile, Iran, and Vietnam—are consid-
ered highly patriarchal societies. However, we find the gen-
der allocations reported in the early family decision-making
literature to occur in our American husband/immigrant wife
families. In contrast, we observe the reverse when the male
spouses are the immigrants. The finding that differences
exist when husbands are immigrants versus wives may be
expected given the hierarchical nature of most of the cul-
tures represented. Immigrant wives defer to higher-status
husbands. However, American wives expect egalitarian
treatment, and immigrant husbands accept this given the
family’s residence in the United States. In addition, most
participants acknowledge that the current roles are context
based and would probably change if the families were to
reside in the immigrant spouse’s home country. Thus, con-
text matters. The data suggest that the interaction between
the families’ culture of origin and culture of residence influ-
ences role allocation—an impact that may override other
previously examined bases for spousal role allocations
(which may be cultural constructions themselves). However,
the question remains: What drives the allocations of these
roles in American husband/immigrant wife households ver-
sus immigrant husband/American wife households?
Wallendorf and Reilly (1983a) note that a conceptual
definition of culture, as a set of socially acquired behavior
patterns, includes language, traditions, customs, dress, food,
religious practices, shared meanings, and institutions. This
combination of behavior patterns and value systems stems
from the interplay of geography, history, technology, politi-
cal economy, and social institutions of the nation or society.
Sahlins (1999, p. 415) posits that culture signs mark bound-
aries, but their “referent is an unseen, good and potent cul-
tural presence.” These signs have an impact on people’s
consumption decisions and behaviors within the given
social context.
Several immigrant participants indicated that their spouse
has been a guide, offering a perspective that has enabled
them to understand U.S. societal norms. For example, Cassie
(Filipino immigrant wife) discusses her attraction to her
American husband, Ed, who is of Filipino ancestry. With an
accounting and finance background, Cassie believes that
location is not a factor in the allocation of decision-making
roles.
I think it’s because the [roles are] based on my expertise
and experience—you cannot really change that. So it
doesn’t matter what location we’re in, it will still remain
the same.
Yet even Cassie acknowledges Ed’s “Americanness” as part
of his attraction for her and talks about the role Ed has
played in her adjustment to the United States:
 Yeah, we’re very compatible, my husband and I. Some-
times he jokes about my accent and like I get attracted to
him in the fact that he’s, like I said, he’s more American
than Filipino.... I think I needed a different set of values
that will help me adjust.... I mean, I know English lan-
guage, but there are things, like those idioms, that I still
don’t get, that, you know, at least he’s my husband, I can
ask him any time I want. So I’ve learned also ... American
history. I’ve learned from him.
Cassie believes that if they had both been immigrants, they
would have been “a little bit more clueless.” She views her
marriage as an aid to understanding U.S. traditions such as
Thanksgiving.
Cultural competence has perhaps been overlooked as a
source of expert power because it may only manifest itself
clearly in situations in which a person is outside his or her
customary cultural context. Gilly (1995, p. 509) alludes to
this base of knowledge and competence in her study of
American expatriates in Spain, where the familiarity with
“how things work” was the aspect of American life that was
most missed. American expatriates in Spain relied on
longer-term expatriates who had “conquered the unknown”
for product and shopping advice.
The interview data help explain the feasibility triangles
in Figures 2 and 3. The native spouse’s cultural competence
is drawn on when immigrant husbands and American wives
engage in greater joint decision making for issues that are
husband dominant in immigrant wife/American husband
households (i.e., investments, insurance, capital expendi-
tures, and remodeling). Our data show that decision-making
power in binational households can stem from several
sources. Prior studies have outlined various bases of conju-
gal power, including power based on expertise. Yet there
has been little exploration into the subdimensions of these
power bases, particularly in the context of nontraditional
family structures. We propose that a closer examination of
expertise as a source of conjugal power indicates that there
are four sources of expert power: expertise based on (1)
vocational knowledge or training (e.g., formal schooling),
(2) experience (e.g., skill, proficiency), (3) related roles and
responsibilities (e.g., task allocations influenced by gender,
country of origin of the spouses, country of residence), and
(4) cultural competence (i.e., knowledge of the traditions,
social norms, markets, language, and expectations within a
given society, nation, or culture). We also contend that just
as the literature has overlooked the subdimensions of exper-
tise as a base of power, it has also failed to account for all
aspects of the capital resources partners bring to a relation-
ship. We therefore argue that cultural competence is also a
form of cultural capital.
Holt (1997, p. 97) extends Bourdieu’s construct of cul-
tural capital and refers to “field-specific cultural capital,” a
currency that is socially consequential within particular
fields of consumption. Holt argues that cultural capital is
not just an abstract notion but also a concept that manifests
itself in various forms in social life. Bourdieu (1984, p. 85)
also speaks of the family as a market, a site where use of
particular competences substantiate the importance of the
competences themselves. He states that “the acquisition of
130 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
cultural competence is inseparable from insensible acquisi-
tion of a ‘sense’ for sound cultural investment.”
In the binational family, the native spouse possesses this
competence, manifested in his or her innate familiarity with
the traditions, social norms, and institutions of the country
in which the family resides. It is clear that for the spouses
whose fortune it is to reside in the country in which they
were born and raised, they possess an advantage: cultural
competence. However, this form of cultural competence is
not rooted in high culture activities in the narrow Bour-
dieuian interpretations (Lareau and Weininger 2003) but
instead based on the intersection of culture of origin and
culture of residence. The culture of residence is the domi-
nant culture, and the native spouse functions as a cultural
intermediary—again, not necessarily of social class (unless
one considers that cultural competence is inflected by bina-
tional versions of social class) but of cultural milieu, a way
for the family to more easily navigate the practices of the
particular societal context. In this role, the native spouse
possesses a disproportionate influence, with a resultant
dependence on the part of the immigrant spouse.
Thus, we propose that cultural competence is both a
source of expert power and a particular form of cultural
capital based on a pragmatic understanding of how things
work and society functions in a particular culture. To extend
Holt (1997), we refer to this as “household-specific cultural
capital”—a relative competence manifested in the bina-
tional household. Cultural competence as a form of cultural
capital allows for greater influence in the home as a source
of expert power and a basis for role allocation and is funda-
mental to a person’s ability to navigate a given culture. It
augments Bourdieu’s (1984) social capital created through
lineage, wealth, education, income, greater understanding
of social norms and cultural practices, and the resultant for-
mation of influential social networks.
Acquiring Cultural Competence
Over time, immigrants learn about the norms of the culture
of residence and acquire some cultural competence through
their own observation. Colin (immigrant husband) reflects,
Well, when I first came over here, I didn’t realize how
much they [Americans] consume food. When I first came
over, we’d go out for breakfast, and lunch, and dinner. I
got to a point where I would have breakfast and that would
do me in until dinner. I grew up with the attitude that you
eat everything that’s on your plate. But I got to a point
where I couldn’t eat three meals a day. Sitting down and
people saying, “How do you want your steak?” and, “Do
you want a salad?” When I grew up, it was like everything
just came out.... It wasn’t a main meal that comes with all
these sides. Very different. A lot of decision making when
it comes to food. That’s totally different.
However, immigrants married to native spouses have an
advantage over other immigrants; they have a culturally
competent guide to explain what cannot be easily observed.
Colin notes,
She [American wife] manages the money and she’s more
in tune as to how the system works. She even got me my
first credit card and told me how to use it. She’s tried once
or twice to get me to try and take responsibility for it,
 she’s always taking control of it and I’m pretty comfort-
able with it.
Immigrant spouses must learn more than the mysteries of
the marketplace, however. Julio (immigrant husband from
Mexico) shares his experience in navigating gender role
expectations:
I know, from my personal experience at least, some [rela-
tionships] like Sally and myself [are] not easy, because the
American ladies have more independence in the way that
they think and they are also [financially] independent.
They don’t need somebody there to pay the bills; they
don’t. So to start, the first two years [are] difficult, it’s not
easy, because you need to learn and you need to give,
because if only one side gives and the other not, it
[doesn’t] work.... Sometimes for one, because you don’t
know the system, you can’t say a word or make some
action.... So, I learn.
Our research indicates that it is not only the immigrant
spouse who benefits from intermarriage, as Meng and Gre-
gory (2005) suggest in their study of economic assimilation.
Rather, native spouses gain, both from bringing their own
cultural characteristics from the background to the fore-
ground and from learning intercultural competencies. Hall
(1959) suggests that exposure to another culture is impor-
tant not only because it helps us learn about another way of
doing things but because of what it reveals about ourselves.
Simon (American husband) thinks about his own cul-
ture and the things that are an “education every day”
because his immigrant wife from Belarus asks questions
about it:
There are things that you, growing up in the United States,
could eventually just come to take for granted. When you
are with someone whose eyes are opened by all the things
that are here, you come to appreciate those a little more
than you might elsewise.
The native spouse, in learning about his or her spouse’s cul-
ture, also gains an appreciation for cultural differences in
general, is able to view his or her own culture analytically,
and acquires an increase in intercultural competence, which
can have personal and professional implications. Kipnis,
Broderick, and Demangeot’s (2013, p. 13) “consumer multi-
culturation” refers to changes in the cultural identification
and consumption behavior of mainstream consumers who
come into continuous contact with multiple cultures. The
authors argue that continuous contact with other cultures in
the marketplace or, as we argue, in the home, generates
multicultural awareness and facilitates the development of
affiliative cultural identities.
In addition, we find that the influence of the dual cul-
tures occurs both at the individual and the wider group lev-
els, as Peñaloza (1989) asserts in her discussion of consumer
learning within a multicultural context. Thus, the notion of
cultural competence extends beyond the dyadic relationship
of the spouses to other family members. Immigrant spouses
learn not only from their partners but also from their in-
laws and even their children. Hannah (immigrant wife) dis-
cusses preparing her first Thanksgiving meal: “So I would
call my mother-in-law. I’d say, Mom, help me out here....
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 131
And then she taught me because I’ve never had a Thanks-
giving feast.”
All of the participant families interviewed had minor
children, with one couple expecting their first child. Partici-
pants discussed the very positive effect they believe, and
hope, the dual cultures in the home will have on their chil-
dren’s development. Leila (immigrant wife) tries to expose
her children to both Taiwanese and Irish American culture
through food and customs by celebrating both Chinese New
Year and St. Patrick’s Day: “I try to get the kids to under-
stand that they have different cultures and where they come
from—Irish and Chinese.” Kenny (Leila’s American hus-
band) hopes that his children
are familiar with just hearing different languages, having
different cultures, seeing people that look a little different,
act a little different. I mean they are a little different. So I
think it’s positive. I mean, it’s got to be.
John (American husband) argues the importance of children
seeing differences work:
I think that it has been positive because I think they see. I
do not believe children learn very much by what they are
told. I think they learn most of what they learn by observ-
ing other people. So what they are seeing is two very dif-
ferent people, and they will choose—they can choose.
Hannah (John’s Filipina wife) views this ability to choose
as “having the best of both worlds” for her children, both in
their upbringing and in their exposure to both cultures. Yet
as John relates, having both worlds is simultaneously chal-
lenging and rewarding for the partners as well.
We even had an argument one time where she was upset
at me—she said we just don’t click and we are not the
same. I said, “I am glad that we are not the same, I am
glad that we have different perspectives”—that gives us
so much more power as a couple if we can work together
on something; we can see things from totally different
perspectives. I told her my first wife and I could have
been brother and sister, both blond hair, both green eyes....
I mean, we were practically twins in almost every way—
philosophies, everything. It was great in a lot of ways and
we always got along but ... a lot about it was boring,
whereas with [Hannah] it is never boring. Because there is
a tension as a result of different contexts not jiving, differ-
ent expectations not jiving, but if we can deal with that—
which is not always easy to deal with—but if we can deal
with that, it is a whole lot more interesting and [creates] a
whole lot richer experiences in the relationship.
Aspirations of the binational parents for their children
are corroborated in interviews conducted with adult chil-
dren of other binational families. These interviewees reveal
that while they had both positive and negative experiences
growing up in binational homes, the dual cultures in the
home had long-lasting benefits that all binational children
share. As one participant with Ghanaian and American par-
ents notes,
In terms of everyone else, I’d say that my food experience
is far more diverse than theirs, because I’ve been growing
up with Ghanaian food. As a reality, it made me so much
more open to other things, because my parents would be
like, “Oh, be open, and try whatever,” but I think this
openness hasn’t only affected me in terms of foods, but it
 affected me in terms of life, like, hey, I can’t say I don’t
like it until I’ve tried it.
Another participant, whose parents are from Germany and
the United States, believes that binational children do grasp
the pros and the cons of being binational:
[There is a] tolerance of difference and of people being
different. The ability to step into someone else’s shoes
like if it was language issues or just trying to get along....
It’s like we’re all just really different from one another
and that’s okay.... I think it’s also the negative side of
when cultures hit each other, I think we understand that
and so someone who grows [up] in a one-culture family
never sees the fireworks that set off when you mix reli-
gion and race and culture and language.... And the fact
that culture doesn’t always mix.... So I think it’s this just
acknowledgment, this culture and it’s so tough. It’s so
hard inside people that sometimes it doesn’t work, these
combinations that we make. But I do think it’s an appreci-
ation for it and when it does work ... it’s like wow, isn’t
that cool?
A participant of Japanese and Jewish American heritage
corroborates this ability to tolerate, appreciate, and yet
question the status quo, stating,
Everyone grew up believing that certain types of rules and
regulations were inherently natural and correct, and I did
not.... Everyone must eat certain foods; ... it is like I
totally did not have that.
It is clear that dual cultures in the home have an impact
not only on the partner spouses but also on their offspring.
Binational children growing up with both cultures will have
negative experiences and sometimes feel like “fish out of
water”; however, they will also assimilate many of the qual-
ities—such as openness, tolerance for difference, and the
ability to critically question the status quo—that can aid
success in an increasingly diverse and global marketplace.
In discussing the acquisition of cultural competence,
Bourdieu (1984, p. 28) notes that “such competence is not
necessarily acquired by means of the ‘scholastic’ labours in
which some ... indulge.... Most often it results from the
unintentional learning made possible by a disposition
acquired through domestic or scholastic inculcation of
legitimate culture.” He describes the family as one of the
social spaces or “sites where competence is produced.” The
other is school (Bourdieu 1984, p. 85). Again, although
Bourdieu is interpreted as referring to competence rooted in
social class, the parallels are clear. This is the unintentional
learning that our participant with German and American
parentage refers to when asserting that family meal times in
multicultural homes are “a chance for cultural learning, not
book learning, where we share beliefs and opinions and
learn how to negotiate these different views of the world,
around that table, around the food.” Binational spouses and
their offspring acquire cultural and intercultural compe-
tence through the unintentional and intentional learning,
both positive and negative, that takes place—and, it may be
argued, can only take place—in a culturally diverse home.
132 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
Cultural Compensatory
Mechanisms
The family decision-making literature stream has focused
on decisions and decision roles in established households.
Yet it is clear that decision making in these households does
not simply begin after the household is formed. Our data
show that decisions made in the formative stages of the
household are just as important and indeed influence future
choices and roles. For example, in these families, decisions
about where to get married and where to reside can be key
points of discussion and even contention, as couples take
into account dual country affiliations, familial relationships,
and mobility. In discussing the reasons behind her family’s
move to California, Lanna (American wife) concedes that it
was a decision based on her desire to be near her family—
an option not available to her Mexican-born husband, who
has no family in the United States:
That is my fault again.... So the only family we have in
the United States was in California and his whole family
lives in Mexico where he is from, so I wanted to be close
to one or the other.... He said yes, but he really wasn’t
crazy about moving.
Residential decisions not only are based on factors such as
neighborhood demographics or proximity to work but can
also include extensive deliberations on the country in which
to start a home. Sharon (American wife) discusses her deci-
sion to live in the United States with her Australian husband:
We just talked about it. Went through the scenarios, and
my parents are here, my sister is deceased, so it was
important for me to stay close to my parents. I had lived in
Australia, obviously, when I met him and the part that I
lived in I had friends, but it just didn’t feel like home. He
had to be comfortable with living here, but the agreement
was that if he was willing to move to the States, then he
got to pick where we lived in the States.
These spouses all made the United States their home for
reasons including greater opportunities, higher standards of
living, and even safety considerations. Yet the decision to
live in the United States means a distancing from the immi-
grant spouse’s family members, childhood associations, and
cultural history. Consequences of these choices are fre-
quently reflected in subsequent, seemingly unrelated every-
day decisions. These decisions are often manifested through
cultural compensatory mechanisms—defined as acts that
benefit the immigrant spouse to recompense for moving
away from his or her culture—in these binational homes.
Previous consumer literature has discussed compen-
satory mechanisms as alternative strategies or processes for
reliance when an internal cue (Solomon 1983) or an experi-
ential opportunity (Peck and Childers 2003) is lacking or
unavailable. For binational families, only one of the societal
anchors of the household is available and accessible on a
daily basis: the culture of the native spouse. Outside the
home, one culture dominates, which has implications for
the roles of both the immigrant spouse and that of his or her
native partner within the home.
For the immigrant spouse, the decision to reside in
another country entails sacrifice, a term both immigrant and
native participants use in this study. Julio (immigrant hus-
band) found it difficult to give up his successful career as a
military officer in Mexico to move to the United States, a
decision he thought would be better for his U.S.-born wife,
Sally.
Well, in my specific case, when I explained to my boss in
Mexico that I am going to move, he was very unhappy,
and he [offered] me a house and a car and everything if I
don’t move. But, I make some evaluation because at that
time Sally [didn’t] speak the language, Spanish, and she
didn’t know the area.... So it was not fair to put my wife in
Mexico.
There is often a lingering struggle to come to terms with the
initial decision that was made. This effort to reconcile the
two worlds is continuous and, in some ways, can become
more difficult as the years pass. Alonso (immigrant hus-
band), describes this struggle:
What happens is I was 21 when I came. It seems to me
like half of my life has been here. So even though I have
the feeling of always going back, it’s not exactly the same
because I have like half and half ... half of the culture that
I learned here and what I learned there, which is much
stronger because that was childhood. But it’s still ... very
hard.... I try to fit. I try to behave like everybody does
here, but I always know that I’m not the same.... I feel like
I am different. I mean different like ... from another coun-
try. I don’t feel from here yet. I don’t feel like I am from
here. I always feel like I am a foreigner.
Even as immigrants gain their own cultural competence,
they never experience the comfort level of their native
spouse. Moreover, over time, immigrants feel less cultural
competence in their own country as it changes in their
absence. This struggle is fully acknowledged and salient in
the everyday lives and decisions of the family. Partners are
very aware of the compromises made in decisions regarding
neighborhood, food, vacations, schools, and languages that
shift the spousal influence from one decision context to
another and make the relative advantage of the spouses less
clear-cut. There is often a conscious effort to expose the
family to the “other” culture—the missing societal anchor
stemming from the early choices made in these binational
homes. The native spouse is cognizant of the immigrant
spouse’s needs, preferences, and yearnings and often con-
sciously aims to fill this gap through cultural compensatory
mechanisms. He or she finds and tolerates food items that
the immigrant spouse favors, ensures that the family is
exposed to both cultures and languages, and facilitates fam-
ily trips or vacations to the immigrant spouse’s home coun-
try, even if it is not his or her preference.
Lanna (American wife) and Jorge (immigrant husband)
speak only Spanish in the home, and their children attend a
Spanish immersion school. Liang (immigrant wife) and her
American husband, Daniel, only speak Mandarin Chinese
in their home with their children
because they’ll get that elsewhere, and the rule is that at
home, you speak Chinese. In fact, we even homeschool
our children ... because we can give them a bilingual edu-
cation and there is not the social pressure, like at schools
to kind of conform.
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 133
For these families, the compromise takes place in the deci-
sions about school and language, as they seek ways to ensure
that they and the children are conversant in both languages.
That her family lives in a country that is not home to her
Australian husband has an underlying impact on the prod-
ucts Sharon (American wife) considers buying and where.
Previously, she had noted that their compromise was his
choosing where to live within the United States. However,
she continues to compensate for their choice of residence
by considering his food preferences as she shops: “I have to
be sensitive to the fact that this isn’t his home and he didn’t
grow up here, so I’ll try to incorporate things here that he
likes.” For binational participants, food compromises also
encompass combining and alternating dishes in the same
meal or different meals from week to week as well as
adjusting or combining ingredients for a particular dish
(Cross and Gilly 2013b). Returning to the survey data in
Figures 2 and 3, immigrant husbands’ greater involvement
in food purchases reflects the need to accommodate their
preferences in the pantries of immigrant husband/American
wife households.
The choice of vacation destination is a major area of
compromise for several families, with regular trips planned
to the immigrant spouse’s home country. Indeed, trips are
not necessarily always vacations in the sense of a relaxing
getaway but rather a “going home” for the immigrant
spouse. For example, Lanna (American wife) and Jorge
(immigrant husband) travel to Puebla, Mexico, to visit
Jorge’s family:
We go to Puebla every other year, which is down south
and that’s where his family is from.... I have to say, Puebla
is not my favorite place in Mexico because it is a big city
... lots of pollution, all that stuff. So, it’s not my favorite
place, but that’s OK, that’s where they live.... When I go
there, I have to work overtime because I don’t get to
speak English with anybody. It’s kind of exhausting for
me.
With flexible jobs, Daniel and Liang travel annually to visit
family and friends. Daniel says,
Once a year, during the summer time, we return to either
Taiwan or mainland China and we live there for the sum-
mer time.... My daughter went to a local school there,
which she really loves, and then my wife could go shop-
ping, we could visit friends and things like that, and then
we go traveling around and have fun.
Thus, we ask: In the binational family, is the role of cul-
tural expert advantageous, or does the immigrant spouse
also possess a more subtle source of influence within the
decision-making process? We find that this other source of
influence is based not on cultural competence but on the very
lack thereof—an advantage in certain types of decisions
that stems from those early struggles and choices. However,
we also acknowledge the boundaries of this relative influ-
ence and the limits of the compensatory mechanisms
engaged in by the native spouse. The native spouse com-
pensates, but only to a certain degree.
As we have observed from previous examples, cherished
items from the immigrant spouses’ cuisine are seen as a
“must have” in the home—encouraged, tolerated, and even
purchased by the native spouse. Yet in several participant
homes, it is the immigrant spouse who must prepare and
even consume his or her own dishes. The native spouse will
“have nothing to do with it” (Mexican seafood dish), “does
not cook Filipino,” or “will not touch it” (Iranian yogurt
drinks). In these homes, the immigrant spouse can have the
desired food item if he or she procures it, prepares it, and
does not necessarily expect other family members to join in
consuming it.
We find that even with vacations, trips to the immigrant
spouse’s family may be confined to once every other year,
with the extended family coming to visit instead or both
parties meeting midway. As we noted previously, Lanna and
Jorge visit Jorge’s family in Puebla every other year, a trip
that takes its toll on Lanna. They alternate those visits with
meeting Jorge’s parents at a resort town, Rosarito, which is
closer to home, just over the border in Mexico.
Power or influence in the family is relative, complex,
and peculiar to the specific decision type, process, or stage
in the decision process. Relative spousal influence shifts
depending on the stage of the household and the earlier
influence of each spouse. As Figure 3 illustrates, in the for-
mative stage of the binational household, the partners col-
lectively make decisions such as where to marry and where
to reside. Later, the native spouse may have more influence
as a result of greater cultural competence compared with
the immigrant partner. At this stage, cultural competence is
manifested as a basis for role allocation, a source of expert
power and a form of cultural capital. However, over time,
cultural compensatory mechanisms emerge. These cultural
compensatory mechanisms emphasize the consumption
preferences of the immigrant spouse regarding items and
decisions that enhance the relevance of the immigrant
spouse’s culture. These items and decisions include cuisine,
language, children’s schools, and vacation destinations. We
refer to Figure 3 as a decision chain because each stage in
the binational family’s life is linked to the next; decisions
made in a prior stage influence decisions made in subse-
quent stages because of the cultural compensatory mecha-
nisms adopted.
Thus, relative advantage in one area means relinquishing
control in another. These compromises in decision making
should be expected because as with any partnership, negoti-
ation, or decision process, concession in one area usually
means gaining an advantage in another. Reciprocity expec-
tations also differ across cultures (Shen, Wan, and Wyer
2010), which adds another element to decisions made
within bicultural families. For culturally heterogeneous
households, the magnitude of decisions in the formative
stages of the home plays a significant part in the develop-
ment of cultural compensatory mechanisms for both
spouses and the determination of relative spheres of influ-
ence in the ongoing family decision-making process.
Implications and Conclusion
Implications for Family Decision Making
Our research shows that Becker’s (1981) rational choice
approach to analyzing households as decision-making units
134 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
with a single utility curve is limited in the context of bina-
tional or bicultural households, just as it likely is in other
household types (e.g., same-sex households, multigenera-
tional households). Our theoretical development illustrates
the cultural complexity underlying power, decision making
in general, and family decision making specifically. This
line of inquiry suggests that our current portraits of fami-
lies, power, and decisions are due for an overhaul.
Thus, one of this study’s main contributions is that it
adds to the knowledge base in the family decision-making
literature stream through an examination of the types of
capital and consumption decisions in binational households.
Expertise as an established base of conjugal power (Raven,
Centers, and Rodrigues 1975) remains valid in this context.
However, we find that expertise also has different dimen-
sions: expertise due to vocation, expertise arising from
experience, expertise based on related roles and responsibil-
ities, and expertise resulting from cultural competence. For
binational families, a particularly important dimension is
expertise based on cultural competence and savvy. The
partner with greater expertise or knowledge of the residen-
tial consumptionscape plays the role of cultural viaduct,
arbitrator, and translator.
This research also posits that cultural competence can
be viewed as a particular form of cultural capital in bina-
tional and bicultural relationships, which differs from and
augments Bourdieu’s (1984) analysis of the influence and
impact of cultural capital. By introducing the notion that
cultural competence (based on knowledge of the traditions,
norms, markets, and institutions of the country of resi-
dence) is another dimension of cultural capital, we offer a
new way to use Bourdieu’s theory in the context of cultural
interaction. Recognition that expertise can come from a
variety of sources (with cultural competence the focus here)
enriches the family decision-making literature stream. Its
narrow focus on gender roles and identifying who domi-
nates a particular purchase decision has limited our under-
standing of how decisions are made within households.
Extending Epp and Price (2011), we demonstrate that the
efforts to accommodate cultural differences within the fam-
ily reflect the goal of “being a family.” Unlike the children
of immigrants (Park 2005), who consciously use consump-
tion to demonstrate American identity, binational families
embrace the fact that they are not a “typical American fam-
ily.” The cultural competence everyone in the family gains
distinguishes these households.
By taking into account the impact of decisions in the
formative stages of the home, we show that decisions are
interconnected and have direct effects on the partners’
spheres of influence for any particular decision. Our find-
ings indicate that the native spouse, who possesses a rela-
tive advantage from cultural know-how, compensates by
relinquishing control in other decisions. By virtue of being
the immigrant, the less culturally competent spouse may
therefore gain greater influence over decisions related to
vacations, children’s education, and food. We find that there
are limits to cultural compensatory mechanisms, because
spouses’ abilities and resources do not always allow for tit-
for-tat compromises. Our research addresses Wilk’s (1989,
p. 30) concern that decision-making models portray house-
hold decision-making processes as linear, with a beginning
and an end, “rather than as parts of continuing social rela-
tionships.” Compromise as a compensatory mechanism is
manifested throughout the interconnected phases and
spheres of influence. This study thus extends the work of
Epp and Price (2011), who demonstrate that family decision
making involves finding solutions that will meet individual
goals as well as the needs of the family. We find that con-
cession and compromise occur over time as the family
forms consensus around decisions that require trade-offs in
future decisions. Vacations may be a joint decision, but the
choice of where to live has implications for those choices in
the future. Although this phenomenon is brought to the
foreground in binational homes, it is expected that this com-
pensatory mechanism operates in all partnerships.
If we extend our view beyond conjugal power, we
observe that the dynamics of cultural heterogeneity in bina-
tional marriages can have wider societal and economic
impacts. In their study of intermarriage in Australia, Meng
and Gregory (2005) argue that it is important to examine
the effect of family structure on assimilation. Their findings
reveal that there is an “intermarriage premium” for immi-
grant men and women who marry native Australians—a
premium not shown to exist for the native partner in the
marriage or for immigrants who marry other immigrants.
Our research supplements and extends Meng and Gregory’s
findings to show the advantage of intermarriage for native
and immigrant spouses as well as their offspring.
The immigrant spouse clearly benefits from the union
because he or she more quickly acquires cultural compe-
tency and know-how because of access to the native part-
ner. However, as our data show, the native spouse benefits
as well. He or she has a relative advantage in certain aspects
of decision making, possessing an innate source of cultural
expertise that can lead to a disproportionate influence;
learns more about his or her culture as cultural differences
are brought to the foreground; and gains increased cultural
competence through exposure to another culture, possibly a
different language, unusual foods, other countries, and
diverse perspectives. Brannen and Thomas (2010, p. 3)
define biculturals as “people who have internalized more
than one cultural profile.” They empirically find that bicul-
turals are more skilled than monoculturals (those exposed
only to their own culture) in intercultural effectiveness. Fur-
thermore, they speculate that biculturals may be particularly
well suited to be boundary spanners in multicultural organi-
zational teams. Cultural competency may lead to what man-
agement scholars call “cultural intelligence”—that is, the
ability to function and manage effectively in culturally
diverse settings (Ang and Van Dyne 2008). Although
spouses in binational marriages may not internalize the oth-
ers’ culture in the same way children do, they gain
increased multicultural awareness and can develop an affil-
iative cultural identity with the immigrant spouse’s culture
(Kipnis, Broderick, and Demangeot 2013). McCracken
(2009, p. 47) states that culture has both fast and slow com-
ponents. He notes that attaining “slow” culture depends on
cultural knowledge and that the components of slow culture
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 135
are “especially hard to see,” becoming visible when new-
comers, such as immigrants, “retrieve them from their
familiarity.”
Figure 4 maps the relationships of the key concepts our
research reveals. The native spouse possesses cultural com-
petence that confers both expert power and cultural capital.
The imbalance of cultural competence between the native
and immigrant spouse leads to cultural compensatory
mechanisms that benefit the immigrant spouse in maintain-
ing ties with his or her culture. Over time, the immigrant
spouse gains cultural competence through the cultural
understanding of the native spouse.
Implications for Marketers and Organizations
With growing immigrant populations and increases in cul-
turally diverse families around the world, marketers should
consider this market segment as offering opportunities. Our
data show that binational families want to accommodate
both cultures. The importance of keeping both cultures
salient makes it imperative for binational families to seek
out items from the immigrant partner’s culture. An example
of a retailer that meets the needs of immigrants and their
native spouses is Wholesome Choice, located in Southern
California. According to its website, it intends to be “an
International specialty market which offers a spectacular
array of International specialty and ethnic foods from
around the world, as well as traditional and conventional
groceries.” Another example is the recently opened C-Fresh
Market in central Iowa, described in the news media as a
market with “global appeal, [catering] to different national-
ities,” with a “wide and unusual selection” of international
foods. “Everything from hot dogs and Rice Krispies to
spiny eel fish and black fungus.” According to a customer,
“It’s like something new for everybody; different cultures
mixing into one” (KCCI News 2013). Whereas California is
one of the two most culturally diverse states, note that Iowa
FIGURE 4
A Model of Cultural Competence and Cultural
Compensatory Mechanisms in Binational Homes
Native
Spouse
Possesses SOURCE OF
EXPERT
POWER
CULTURAL
COMPETENCE
Gains
FORM OF
CULTURAL
CAPITAL
Through Leads to
CULTURAL
COMPENSATORY
Immigrant
MECHANISMS
Spouse
Benefit
is the sixth least-diverse state (Emerson 2011), suggesting
that demand for culturally diverse products is widespread.
Hermans and Kempen (1998, pp. 1117–18) insist that
researchers need to place more emphasis on the “contact
zones between cultures; the interactional meeting places”
where exchanges of cultural information occur. We propose
that in multicultural communities, retailers and marketers
need to capitalize on opportunities to meet changing market-
place expectations, envisioning interactional contact zones
with broad creative product offerings and service experi-
ences that meet the needs of natives and nonnatives alike.
If we view the binational family as a microsetting for
bridging cultural divides (Lauth Bacas 2002; Cross and
Gilly 2013a), our results also offer insights into targeting
binational families as well as families in general. For exam-
ple, salespeople select a strategy for selling to a particular
client (Dixon, Spiro, and Jamil 2001). If the salesperson
makes assumptions about gender roles without considering
the background of each spouse, the sales strategy may be
ineffective. The salesperson should consider all aspects of
expert power—experience, vocational training, related
roles, and the spouses’ cultural competency—in deciding on
a sales strategy.
Media depictions of families also need to reflect more
diversity. The gay couple depicted on the television show
Modern Family is perceived to represent progress in depict-
ing nontraditional households. However, less attention has
been paid to the show’s binational couple, Jay (American)
and Gloria (Colombian), perhaps because storylines empha-
size their May–December marriage over their binational
status. Advertisers who rely on stereotypes of gender roles
will likely receive negative feedback. Ragú recently
incurred a social media storm after stereotyping fathers as
poor cooks who make “breakfast for dinner” and need Ragú
brand chicken recipes to help them. In reality, many fathers
enjoy cooking. Sadly, some recent attempts to show diverse
families in ads were also controversial. The Cheerios ad
featuring a biracial child received so many racist slurs that
the comments section on YouTube was shut down. How-
ever, in posts on Facebook, many consumers expressed
their appreciation for the brand’s decision to depict a bira-
cial family.
Kumar and Steenkamp (2013, p. 130) suggest that cor-
porations from emerging markets can establish global
brands by targeting emigrants from their homelands. If the
diaspora are sufficiently large in number, geographically
spread but with concentrations in key regions, and have a
socioeconomic profile similar to the host population, they
can “serve as stepping-stones for brands to go national.”
Kumar and Steenkamp point to biculturals (i.e., immigrants
who incorporate both home and host cultures into their
identities) as particularly relevant targets. We argue that
binational households are also likely to have the requisite
ties to home and host cultures to act as conduits for foreign
brands to the host culture.
As in binational family contexts, cultural competence is
an asset in organizational settings. The member with the
dominant expertise and knowledge in the chosen setting
may serve as the facilitator for other team members in that
136 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
sphere, playing the intermediary role of bridge, broker, and
boundary spanner (Thomas, Brannen, and Garcia 2010). A
reviewer noted that one of his or her Chinese American stu-
dents had a summer internship at Paramount Studios
involving market entry negotiations in China. As the only
team member who could speak the language, this student
immediately played a more substantial role than a less cul-
turally competent intern would. In his argument for a chief
culture officer, McCracken (2009, p. 128) reiterates the
need for people who can traverse different worlds, with
some knowledge of “worlds alien to their own ... worlds
that proceed according to other assumptions.” He argues
that organizations should seek out people who are able to
accept disruption, extend beyond their own preferences and
comfort zone, and see issues from different perspectives.
Because of their skills related to intercultural effectiveness,
which are necessary in today’s global enterprise, members
of binational households should be attractive potential
employees (Thomas, Brannen, and Garcia 2010).
Diversity is said to beget creativity in organizational
settings (Roberge and Van Dick 2010). Our research reveals
manifestations of cultural compensatory mechanisms in
binational families’ attempts to incorporate practices from
both cultures. Culturally diverse households act as sociali-
zation units in which intentional and unintentional learning
takes place. The family’s cultural diversity brings differing
cultural characteristics to the fore and inevitably changes
the culture of the household. Similarly, members of cultur-
ally diverse organizations engage in intentional and unin-
tentional learning, resulting in greater creativity. Organiza-
tions can encourage a global mindset through both formal
initiatives and informal learning. Cayla and Arnould (2013,
p. 13) contend that ethnographic stories “disrupt organiza-
tional paradigms, [helping] organizations to develop new
strategic foundations.” We argue that culturally diverse
units and teams are also disruptive, and it is this disruptive
influence that provides inspiration and insights into creative
combinations of products, services, and other cultural and
marketing touchstones.
Implications for Society
The microsetting of culturally diverse families provides the
ideal initial venue for cross-fertilization of ideas, where flu-
idity of perspective, openness, and tolerance for difference
is encouraged. This leads to enhanced awareness of the
members’ own and others’ cultures and fosters the develop-
ment of a certain sense of intercultural competence among
group members and, ideally, increased collaboration and
innovation, with positive implications for the wider com-
munity. As binational families become more common, more
citizens will not simply coexist with other cultures in sepa-
rate ethnic enclaves but rather encounter other cultures in
their neighborhoods, offices, and even in their extended
families. Cross-cultural and cross-border discussions and
negotiations between organizations in corporate, political,
and economic realms will be more productive and collabo-
rative when the parties involved have had prolonged close
interactions with more than one culture, in either familial or
business settings.
 Peñaloza and Gilly (1999) point out that immigration
leads to marketplace changes, both explicit and subtle.
However, despite increased immigration to the United
States, societal institutions are designed for, and cater to,
the dominant population rather than those who lack cultural
capital. This marginalization also applies to others, in addi-
tion to immigrants, who do not fit the mold of the typical
consumer (e.g., the disabled, the illiterate, the “minority”
consumer). Is this right? Is this even smart? Societal institu-
tions must inculcate and incorporate more than a surface
appreciation for diversity for the benefit of the marketplace,
the society, and those who interact within them.
Conclusion and Next Steps
Given the small size of the survey sample, the generaliz-
ability of the survey findings is necessarily limited. How-
ever, the results follow the trend observed in prior studies
and are consistent within the binational family context.
Conducting similar types of studies of other multicultural or
other nonhomogeneous households with a larger sample
and mapping the data using Wolfe’s (1959) feasiblity trian-
gle would augment the findings of this study. We find that
families make trade-offs over time, with decisions favoring
one spouse being compensated in other ways to even out
sacrifice. The compensatory mechanisms used by binational
families likely apply in parallel ways to other families. For
marketers to understand a family’s purchase at t = 1, they
must appreciate the purchase at t = –1 and the anticipated
purchase at t = 1+.
Although we find that immigrant spouses become more
culturally competent over time, we have insufficient data to
extend Figure 3 for binational couples who have been mar-
ried for decades or are empty nesters, and for families in
which the children’s exposure to the other culture is less
salient. Further research should study binational empty
nesters who have co-resided in one country many years to
determine whether cultural competence remains a source of
expertise in binational families. In addition, a deeper probe
into the nature of decision making in the binational home,
REFERENCES
Andrews, Bart (1985), The “I Love Lucy” Book. New York:
Doubleday.
Ang, Soon and Linn Van Dyne (2008), “Conceptualization of Cul-
tural Intelligence: Definition, Distinctiveness, and Nomologi-
cal Network,” in Handbook of Cultural Intelligence, Soon Ang
and Linn Van Dyne, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 3–15.
Bean, Frank D. and Gillian Stevens (2003), America’s Newcomers
and the Dynamics of Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foun-
dation.
Becker, Gary S. (1981), A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Belch, Michael A. and Laura A. Willis (2002), “Family Decision
at the Turn of the Century: Has the Changing Structure of
Households Impacted the Family Decision-Making Process?”
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2 (2), 111–24.
Blackledge, Adrian (2001), “The Wrong Sort of Capital,” Interna-
tional Journal of Bilingualism, 5 (3), 345–69.
Blood, Robert O. and Donald Wolfe (1960), Husbands and Wives.
New York: The Free Press.
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 137
focusing on the link between the particular nuances of the
decision-making process and the way the spouses have
been socialized in their respective countries would be bene-
ficial. Developing an understanding of the situations that
sculpt intercultural competence and how this competence is
cultivated in children of binational families would also
extend this research.
Our participants were all comfortably middle class and
rather sophisticated regarding global travel and different
cultures. Although Ustuner and Holt (2007) consider immi-
grant rather than binational households, their work on how
acculturation operates for poor immigrants suggests that
underclass binational households could have very different
experiences. Our work should be extended to include a
broader range of socioeconomic groups, across different
national settings, to provide a better understanding of the
relative influence of country of origin, country of encounter
(i.e., where the partners met), and country of residence on
consumption decisions, dyadic interactions, and power
dynamics within diverse partnerships. Such research will
properly complicate the lives of marketers and researchers
alike, but given the increasingly heterogeneous composition
of households (e.g., multicultural, same-sex, multigenera-
tional), digging deep to understand these dynamics is
unavoidable.
This study is one more step in addressing the “intramicro-
cultural research” gap in consumer acculturation studies
suggested by Ogden, Ogden, and Schau (2004). In their
review of the ethnicity and acculturation literature streams,
they propose that there are intracultural differences that
directly affect purchase decisions. Our research argues that the
impact of these cultural differences on purchases and other
family decision making are amplified within multicultural
family structures in diverse societies such as the United
States. Studying decision making in culturally diverse
binational families reveals a different perspective on how
decisions are formulated and conflicts are resolved in cross-
cultural familial, organizational, and societal settings.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984), Distinction: A Social Critique of the
Judgment of Taste, Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press.
——— (1986), “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory of
Research for the Sociology of Education, John E. Richardson,
ed. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–58.
Brannen, Mary Yoko and David C. Thomas (2010), “Understand-
ing Bicultural Individuals in Organizations: Implications and
Opportunity,” International Journal of Cross-Cultural Man-
agement, 10 (1), 5–16.
Breger, Rosemary and Rosanna Hill (1998), “Introducing Mixed
Marriages,” in Cross-Cultural Marriage, Identity and Choice,
Rosemary Breger and Rosanna Hill, eds. Oxford, UK: Berg, 1–
32.
Brooks, Tim and Earle F. Marsh (2003), The Complete Directory
to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows: 1946–Present,
8th ed. New York: Ballantyne Books.
Bryman, Alan (2006), “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research: How Is It Done?” Qualitative Research, 6 (1), 97–
113.
Cayla, Julien and Eric Arnould (2013), “Ethnographic Stories for
Market Learning,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (July), 1–16.
Childers, Terry L. and O.C. Ferrell (1981), “Husband-Wife Deci-
sion Making in Purchasing and Renewing Auto Insurance,”
Journal of Risk and Insurance, 48 (3), 482–93.
Commuri, Suraj and James W. Gentry (2000), “Opportunities for
Family Research in Marketing,” Academy of Marketing Sci-
ence Review, 8, (accessed February 19, 2014), [available at
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009
&context=marketingfacpub].
——— and ——— (2005), “Resource Allocation in Households
with Women as Chief Wage Earners,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (2), 185–95.
Creswell, John W. and Vicki L. Plano Clark (2011), Designing and
Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Cross, Samantha N.N. and Mary C. Gilly (2013a), “Bridging Cul-
tural Divides: The Role and Impact of Binational Families,”
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 32 (Special Issue), 106–
111.
——— and ——— (2013b), “Consumption Compromises: Negotia-
tion and Unification Within Contemporary Families,” Journal
of Business Research, 67 (4), 449–56.
Davis, Harry L. (1970), “Dimensions of Marital Roles in Con-
sumer Decision Making,” Journal of Marketing Research, 7
(May), 168–77.
——— (1976), “Decision Making Within the Household,” Journal
of Consumer Research, 2 (4), 241–60.
——— and Benny P. Rigaux (1974), “Perception of Marital Roles
in Decision Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (1),
51–62.
De Graaf, Paul M. (1986), “The Impact of Financial and Cultural
Resources on Educational Attainment in the Netherlands,”
Sociology of Education, 59 (4), 237–46.
DiMaggio, Paul and John Mohr (1985), “Cultural Capital, Educa-
tional Attainment, and Marital Selection,” American Journal of
Sociology, 90 (6), 1231–61.
Dixon, Andrea L., Rosann L. Spiro, and Maqbul Jamil (2001),
“Successful and Unsuccessful Sales Calls: Measuring Sales-
person Attributions and Behavioral Intentions,” Journal of
Marketing, 65 (July), 64–78.
Emerson, Greg (2011), “The Least Diverse States in America,”
MainStreet.com, (February 28), (accessed February 26, 2014),
[available at http://www.mainstreet.com/slideshow/lifestyle/
least-diverse-states-america].
Epp, Amber M. and Linda L. Price (2008), “Family Identity: A
Framework of Identity Interplay in Consumption Practices,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (1), 50–69.
——— and ——— (2011), “Designing Solutions Around Customer
Network Identity Goals,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (March),
36–54.
French, John and Bertram H. Raven (1959), “The Bases of Social
Power,” in Studies in Social Power, D. Cartwright, ed. Ann
Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 150–67.
Gilly, Mary C. (1995), “The Consumer Acculturation of Expatriate
Americans,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 22,
Frank R. Kardes and Mita Sujan, eds. Provo, UT: Association
for Consumer Research, 506–510.
Glaser, Barnet G. and Anselm L. Strauss (1967), The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Green, Robert T. and Isabella C.M. Cunningham (1975), “Femi-
nine Role Perception and Family Purchasing Decisions,” Jour-
nal of Marketing Research, 12 (August), 325–32.
———, Jean-Paul Leonardi, Jean-Louis Chandon, Isabella C.M.
Cunningham, Bronis Verhage, and Alain Strazzieri (1983),
“Societal Development and Family Purchasing Roles: A Cross-
National Study,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (4), 436–42.
138 / Journal of Marketing, May 2014
Hall, Edward T. (1959), The Silent Language. New York: Random
House.
Hermans, Hubert J.M. and Harry J.G. Kempen (1998), “Moving
Cultures: The Perilous Problems of Cultural Dichotomies in a
Globalizing Society,” American Psychologist, 53 (10), 1111–
20.
Holt, Douglas B. (1997), “Distinction: Recovering Bourdieu’s
Theory of Tastes from Its Critics,” Poetics, 25 (2/3), 93–120.
KCCI News (2013), “New Grocery Store Has Global Appeal:
Market Caters to Different Nationalities,” (January 16),
(accessed February 19, 2014), [available at http://www.kcci.
com/news/central-iowa/New-grocery-store-has-global-appeal/
18146190#ixzz2YfZ4AXS9].
Khodadady, Ebrahim, Farnaz Farokh Alaee, and Mottahareh
Natanzi (2011), “Factors Underlying the Social and Cultural
Capitals of High School Students and Their Relationship with
English Achievement,” Theory and Practice in Language Stud-
ies, 1 (11), 1618–27.
Kingston, Paul W. (2001), “The Unfulfilled Promise of Cultural
Capital Theory,” Sociology of Education, 74 (Extra Issue), 88–
99.
Kipnis, Eva, Amanda J. Broderick, and Catherine Demangeot
(2013), “Consumer Multiculturation: Consequences of Multi-
Cultural Identification for Brand Knowledge,” Consumption
Markets & Culture, 17 (3), 1–23.
Kumar, Nirmalya and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2013), “The
Globe: Diaspora Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 91
(10), 127–31.
Lackman, Conway and John M. Lanasa (1993), “Family Decision-
Making Theory: An Overview and Assessment,” Psychology &
Marketing, 10 (2), 81–93.
Lareau, Annette and Elliot B. Weininger (2003), “Cultural Capital
in Educational Research: A Critical Assessment,” Theory and
Society, 32 (5/6), 567–606.
Lau-Gesk, Loraine G. (2003), “Activating Culture Through Per-
suasion Appeals: An Examination of the Bicultural Consumer,”
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13 (3), 301–315.
Lauth Bacas, Jutta (2002), “Cross-Border Marriages and the Forma-
tion of Transnational Families: A Case Study of Greek-German
Couples in Athens,” working paper, (accessed February 19,
2014), [available at www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%
20papers/WPTC-02-10%20Bacas.pdf].
Locke, Karen (1996), “Rewriting the Discovery of Grounded
Theory After 25 Years?” Journal of Management Inquiry, 5
(3), 239–45.
Luna, David, Torsten Ringberg, and Laura A. Peracchio (2008),
“One Individual, Two Identities: Frame Switching Among
Biculturals,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (2), 279–93.
Malone, Nolan, Kaari F. Baluja, Joseph M. Costanzo, and Cynthia
J. Davis (2003), “The Foreign-Born Population: 2000,” U.S.
Census Bureau, (accessed February 19, 2014), [available at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-34.pdf].
McCracken, Grant (2009), Chief Culture Officer: How to Create a
Living, Breathing Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Meng, Xin and Robert G. Gregory (2005), “Intermarriage and the
Economic Assimilation of Immigrants,” Journal of Labor Eco-
nomics, 23 (1), 135–75.
Merton, Robert K. and Elinor Barber (1976), “Sociological
Ambivalence,” in Sociological Ambivalence, Robert K. Mer-
ton, ed. New York: The Free Press, 3–31.
Nelson, Michelle R. and Sameer Deshpande (2004), “Love With-
out Borders: An Examination of Cross-Cultural Wedding Ritu-
als,” in Contemporary Consumption Rituals: A Research
Anthology, Cele C. Otnes and Tina M. Lowrey, eds. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 125–48.
——— and Cele C. Otnes (2005), “Exploring Cross-Cultural
Ambivalence: A Netnography of Intercultural Wedding Mes-
sage Boards,” Journal of Business Research, 58 (1), 89–95.
Ogden, Denise T., James R. Ogden, and Hope Jensen Schau
(2004), “Exploring the Impact of Culture and Acculturation on
Consumer Purchase Decisions: Toward a Microcultural Per-
spective,” Academy of Marketing Science Review, 3, (accessed
February 19, 2014), [available at http://www.amsreview.org/
articles/ogden03-2004.pdf].
Oswald, Laura (1999), “Culture Swapping: Consumption and the
Ethnogenesis of Middle-Class Haitian Immigrants,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 25 (4), 303–318.
Otnes, Cele, Tina M. Lowrey, and L.J. Shrum (1997), “Toward an
Understanding of Consumer Ambivalence,” Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 24 (1), 80–93.
Park, Lisa Sun-Hee (2005), Consuming Citizenship: Children of
Asian Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Peck, Joann and Terry L. Childers (2003), “To Have and to Hold:
The Influence of Haptic Information on Product Judgments,”
Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 35–48.
Peñaloza, Lisa N. (1989), “Immigrant Consumer Acculturation,”
in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 16, Thomas K. Srull,
ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 110–18.
——— and Mary C. Gilly (1986), “The Hispanic Family—
Consumer Research Issues,” Psychology & Marketing, 3 (4),
291–304.
——— and ——— (1999), “Marketer Acculturation: The Changer
and the Changed,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 84–104.
Putnam, Mandy and William R. Davidson (1987), “Family Purchas-
ing Behavior: Family Roles by Product Category,” in The RIS
Consumer Focus Series. Dublin, OH: Management Horizons.
Qualls, William J. (1987), “Household Decision Behavior: The
Impact of Husbands’ and Wives’ Sex Role Orientation,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 14 (2), 264–79.
Raven, Bertram H. (1992), “A Power/Interaction Model of Inter-
personal Influence: French and Raven Thirty Years Later,”
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 7 (2), 217–44.
———, Richard Centers, and Aroldo Rodrigues (1975), “The
Bases of Conjugal Power,” in Power in Families, Ronald E.
Cromwell and David. H. Olson, eds. New York: Sage Publica-
tions, 217–32.
———, Joseph Schwarzwald, and Meni Koslowsky (1998), “Con-
ceptualizing and Measuring a Power/Interaction Model of
Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 28 (4), 307–332.
Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits (1936),
“Memorandum on the Study of Acculturation,” American
Anthropologist, 38 (1), 54–60.
Robbins, Derek (2005), “The Origins, Early Development and
Status of Bourdieu’s Concept of ‘Cultural Capital,’” The
British Journal of Sociology, 56 (1), 13–30.
Roberge, Marie-Elene and Rolf van Dick (2010), “Recognizing
the Benefits of Diversity: When and How Does Diversity
Increase Group Performance?” Human Resource Management
Review, 20 (4), 295–308.
Rudmin, Floyd W. (2003), “Critical History of the Acculturation
Psychology of Assimilation, Separation, Integration, and Mar-
ginalization,” Review of General Psychology, 7 (1), 3–37.
Cultural Competence and Cultural Compensatory Mechanisms / 139
Sahlins, Marshall (1999), “Two or Three Things That I Know
About Culture,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute,
5 (3), 399–421.
Shen, Hao, Fang Wan, and Robert S. Wyer Jr. (2010), “Cross-Cul-
tural Differences in the Refusal to Accept a Small Gift: The
Differential Influence of Reciprocity Norms on Asians and
North Americans,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 100 (2), 271–81.
Shuptrine, F. Kelly and G. Samuelson (1976), “Dimensions of
Marital Roles in Consumer Decision Making: Revisited,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (February), 87–91.
Solomon, Michael R. (1983), “The Role of Products as Social
Stimuli: A Symbolic Interactionism Perspective,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10 (3), 319–29.
Strauss, Anselm and Juliet Corbin (1998), Basics of Qualitative
Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing
Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Thomas, David C., Mary Yoko Brannen, and Dominie Garcia
(2010), “Bicultural Individuals and Intercultural Effective-
ness,” European Journal of Cross-Cultural Competence and
Management, 1 (4), 315–33.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010), “Nation’s Foreign-Born Population
Nears 37 Million,” (October 19), (accessed February 19, 2014),
[available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/
archives/foreignborn_population/cb10-159.html].
Ustuner, Tuba and Douglas B. Holt (2007), “Construction of Poor
Migrant Women’s Consumer Identity Projects in a Turkish
Squatter,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (1), 41–56.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Michael D. Reilly (1983a), “Distinguish-
ing Culture of Origin from Culture of Residence,” in Advances
in Consumer Research, Vol. 10, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice
M. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research, 699–701.
——— and ——— (1983b), “Ethnic Migration, Assimilation, and
Consumption,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (3), 292–
302.
Webster, Cynthia (2000), “Is Spousal Decision Making a Cultur-
ally Situated Phenomenon?” Psychology & Marketing, 17 (12),
1035–58.
Wilk, Richard R. (1989), “Decision Making and Resource Flows
Within the Household: Beyond the Black Box,” in The House-
hold Economy: Reconsidering the Domestic Mode of Produc-
tion, Richard R. Wilk, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 23–
52.
——— and Robert McC. Netting (1984), “Households: Changing
Forms and Functions,” in Households: Comparative and His-
torical Studies of the Domestic Group, Robert McC. Netting,
Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould, eds. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California Press, 1–28.
Wolfe, Donald M. (1959), “Power and Authority in the Family,” in
Studies in Social Power, Dorwin Cartwright, ed. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan, 99–117.