The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0265-1335.htm

Cultural
Cultural differences in, and differences
influences on, consumers’
propensity to adopt innovations
173
Sangeeta Singh
Department of Marketing, Norwegian School of Management, Received April 2004
Sandvika, Norway Revised February 2005
Accepted March 2005

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between national culture and
adoption of new products, ideas, or behaviour to suggest a framework for distinguishing between
innovative and imitative behaviour.
Design/methodology/approach – The four dimensions propounded by Hofstede are used to
distinguish national cultures for developing hypotheses pertaining to patterns of adoption of new
products, namely innovative and imitative behaviour of consumers and the sources of influence that
instigate them into such behaviours.
Findings – Results from the study provide support for some of the hypothesised effects which
suggest that indeed, certain dimensions of culture are a key factor in determining whether or not
consumers will display a propensity to innovate. Specifically, it was found that cultures characterised
by small power distance, weak uncertainty avoidance and masculinity will demonstrate
innovativeness. The findings also indicate that consumers coming from different national cultures
are going to vary in their susceptibility to normative influences and interpersonal communications.
Consumers coming from a large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance and/or feminine
cultures are going to be convinced into adopting new products through normative influences while
those from more collectivistic cultures are more likely to be swayed by interpersonal communications.
Originality/value – These results offer possibilities of influencing consumers into adopting new
products by using different methods that are dependent on the national culture.
Keywords National cultures, Innovation, Interpersonal communications, Behaviour
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The unification of the European market not only presents new market opportunities for
businesses marketing consumer goods but also prompts them into rethinking the way
they have been marketing their wares to consumers in the past. Champions of the
“globalisation” phenomenon would advice treating this integrated market as one in
order to derive economies of scale (based on the underlying assumptions of Levitt, 1983)
whereas supporters of the other school of thought, “localisation” or “customisation”
(for more detailed arguments on this, refer to Douglas and Wind, 1987), would insist on
the formulation of unique strategies for each of the different European markets. Which
one of the two approaches would be more successful would depend on how
homogeneous or heterogeneous the integrated European market turns out to be. International Marketing Review
Vol. 23 No. 2, 2006
pp. 173-191
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
The author would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Norwegian Research Council, 0265-1335
through a research grant, in making this study possible. DOI 10.1108/02651330610660074
IMR In addition to opening up new avenues for multinationals to offer their products and
23,2 services, this political and economic merger of nations provides novel methods of doing
business that were not feasible in the recent past. The new ways of bringing goods and
services to the consumers would in turn require behaviour changes on the part of the
consumers. Consequently, international marketers would be, nay should be, extremely
interested in consumers’ willingness to accept or reject new products and ideas and the
174 factors which determine this behaviour.
The adoption of new products and ideas in markets (and societies) has received
considerable attention in the marketing literature, which has led to discovering the
characteristics of consumer innovators and the behavioural construct of consumer
innovativeness. Researchers have acknowledged that consumer innovativeness is
“an integral and central construct of the theory of the diffusion of innovations”
(Midgley and Dowling, 1978, p. 233) and several studies of consumer behaviour have
engaged in its examination (Foxall, 1988; Green and Langeard, 1975; Hirschman, 1980).
The construct is also of significant importance to practitioners as more and more
companies rely on new product success for their own profitability and survival in a
fiercely competitive environment. Indeed, many companies make it a part of their
mission statement and company policy to insure sustained growth. Nike simply states
its mission “To bring inspiration and innovation (emphasis added by author) to every
athlete in the world”, athlete being defined by its co-founder, Bill Bowerman, as anyone
who has a body. In 2002, 44 per cent of Gillette’s sales came from products introduced
in the previous five years, the ninth consecutive year that more than 40 per cent of the
sales were contributed by new products (www.gillette.com). Both these companies, and
several others, perceive constant innovation as a tool for securing market share in the
international arena and innovative products a means of expanding into new markets.
Clearly, they see a direct link between the acceptance of new products and expansion in
international markets.
The objective of this paper is to present a framework for examining patterns of
consumers’ adoption of new products across nations, where the moderating role of
culture is used to propose the expected patterns of adoption, namely innovative and
imitative behaviour, and consumers’ response to different forms of influences about
new products and ideas. It is critical that an international marketer understand the
means of communicating to and influencing its customers-cultural differences in
the markets determine which type of communication is going to be more effective. The
proposed patterns of adoption and the reaction to the various modes of influences are
then empirically tested with the help of a survey conducted in two European countries,
France and Germany, characterised by different national cultures.
France and Germany were chosen for the following major reasons. They have
similar populations that enjoy equivalent standards of living and are at a comparable
stage of economic development. However, they have been shown to be culturally very
different (Hofstede, 1980). The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that consumers
from seemingly alike countries could exhibit disparate behaviours and in order to
attribute this variance to culture, we had to select countries that were similar on other
aspects. Another related point of this study is to highlight the mistake that marketers
could possibly make by assuming consumers from seemingly similar countries to
respond in an akin manner. The European Union may be politically and economically
entwined but there still remain marked differences in the countries that constitute its
eclectic personality. There were several western European country pairs that could Cultural
have been chosen but the availability of native language speakers from the European differences
Union countries who could help with the data collection played a role in the final
choice. Parallel arguments for selection of countries have been provided by previous
researchers (Whitelock and Rey, 1998).

Innovative and imitative behavior 175

In marketing literature, innovativeness has been defined as “the degree to which a
responding unit is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other units in the
system” (Rogers, 1976, p. 295). The discussion on categorizing adopters of innovations
based on timing is not new. The literature specifies the following classes of adopters
based upon the timing of adoption by the various groups:
(1) innovators;
(2) early adopters;
(3) early majority;
(4) late majority; and
(5) laggards.

Much of the research in marketing concerned with adoption of innovations has been
centred around identifying personality traits and behaviour patterns that may be
linked with innovative behaviour or early adoption of a product but not much has been
said or discussed about other categories of adopters (with the exception of Ram and
Jung, 1994). This oversight has been partly due to measurement difficulties associated
with identifying the different adopter categories, which requires one to employ a
longitudinal study, whereas, most of consumer research on innovation adoption has
been cross-sectional in nature.
Since, diffusion theory has traditionally been defined as a theory of communication
(Rogers, 1983) and described as the process by which an innovation is communicated
among the members of a social system, certain researchers have described innovators
not only in terms of their relative time of adoption but also in terms of how the
individual is influenced into adopting the innovation. Mahajan et al. (1990) point out
members in a society as having different reliance on mass media or other interpersonal
communication channels when seeking information and that these communications are
important influences in determining the speed with which an innovation will be
adopted (Tellefsen and Takada, 1999).
Adopters other than the innovators are influenced in their adoption of new products
and ideas by the pressures in the social system that may take the form of interpersonal
communications and observations, therefore, these influences are coming from sources
external to the individual. People adopting due to external influences have been
distinguished from innovators, who are influenced into adopting because of their
internal predispositions, and called imitators (Bass, 1969; Gatignon et al., 1989;
Mahajan et al., 1990).
A suggestion of categorising the adopters into two groups of innovators and
imitators was first made by Bass (1969) where imitators consist of adopter groups (2)
through (5) mentioned earlier. These two groups were distinguished from one another
on the basis of whether or not they were influenced by others in their decision to adopt
IMR the product. Thus, innovators were those who were not influenced in the timing of their
23,2 purchase of the innovation by other members of the social system while imitators were
influenced in the timing of adoption by the pressures in the social system.
Gatignon et al. (1989) refer to these as the two parameters characterizing the diffusion
process and call them the “propensity to innovate” and “propensity to imitate”. This
classification is in accordance with the conceptualization of Midgley and Dowling (1978)
176 where the adoption of innovation is seen as a predisposition rather than as a personality
trait inherent in the consumer. This paper employs these two propensities to
differentiate between consumer adopter categories of a new product or idea.

Culture and consumption behavior

An assumption of the study of a cultural group is that the behavioural patterns
characteristic of a particular culture, express the shared values and beliefs of that
culture. McCracken (1986) posed that the world of everyday experiences was
shaped and constituted by the beliefs and assumptions of an individual’s culture.
Culture has been referred by Engel et al. (1993) as “a set of values, ideas, artefacts,
and other meaningful symbols that help individuals communicate, interpret, and
evaluate as members of society” (p. 63). They recognize that culture not only
affects the specific products people buy but also the structure of consumption,
individual decision-making and communication about the product. Empirical
studies of consumer behaviour have also acknowledged the role that culture plays
in the consumers’ decision-making process: it affects the drives that motivate
people to take further action, determines what forms of communication are
permitted about problems at hand (Delener and Neelankavil, 1990; O’Guinn and
Meyer, 1984) and even the degree of search behaviour that an individual deems
appropriate (Hirschman, 1981).
Practitioners and researchers in international marketing have taken a slightly
broader perspective of this concept and applied it in comparative and cross-cultural
studies across nations, the idea here being that groups of people with common political,
ethnic, or geographic characteristics share important traits which are eventually
reflected in their consumption behaviour. The concept under study in these cases has
been termed “national character” or “national culture” (Clark, 1990; Hofstede, 1983;
Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996) and has been considered useful in its potential to explain
aggregate national consumer behaviour. Although Hofstede (1983) recognizes the
seemingly false generalizations of statements regarding national culture, he still
believes that for most nations one can distinguish some ways of thinking that a
majority of the inhabitants share and which can be considered a part of that nation’s
national culture.
Although every culture is different, four stable dimensions have been identified by
Hofstede (1983, 1991) which account for much of the variability across cultures. The
following sections elaborate on each of these four dimensions and relate them to
innovative and imitative behaviour.

Individualism and collectivism

Cultures differ from one another in terms of the perceived role of the individual versus
the role of the group. The dimension of individualism and collectivism pertains to the
relation between an individual and his or her fellow individuals and is the degree to
which human beings in a society prefer to act as individuals rather than as members of Cultural
a social group. The ties between the individuals could be very loose where everybody differences
is supposed to look after his or her own self interest and perhaps the interest of
immediate family, as is the case in highly individualistic societies. Such societies award
the individual a lot of freedom of choice and decision-making and personal initiative in
such cases is not only accepted but also encouraged with a high importance being
placed on personal goals and achievements. Collectivistic societies, on the other hand, 177
expect its members to look after the benefits of the social group as a whole and conform
to the norms of the group.
It has been stressed that consumer innovativeness would involve a consumer who
has the natural predisposition towards initiating new behaviour that might be different
from the norm. Members of an individualistic society are, thus, more likely to display
such behaviour than that of a collectivist society as the latter breeds conformity with
the existing norms and accordingly, imitation of expected behaviour. It can therefore
be expected that:
H1. Consumers from more individualistic cultures are going to display a relatively
higher propensity to innovate as compared with those from less
individualistic ones.
H2. Consumers from a more collectivist society are going to display a higher
propensity to imitate as compared with those from a less collectivistic one.
H3. Consumers from a more collectivist society are going to be more susceptible to
normative influences than those from a less collectivistic one.
While both innovators and imitators are influenced by mass-media communications,
only imitators are influenced by word-of-mouth communications. In collectivist
societies, the ties between individuals are strong, which is more conducive to
interpersonal communications. Therefore, it can be supposed that:
H4. Consumers in a more collectivistic society are going to display a higher
propensity to be influenced by interpersonal communications than those in a
less collectivistic one.

Power distance
Power distance in a given society is an indication of how it deals with the fact that
people are unequal in their physical and intellectual capacities. Cultures with large
power distance tend to be hierarchical while those with small power distance tend to
value equality where knowledge and respect are perceived as sources of power. The
dimension of power distance has been found to be inversely related with individualism,
that is, low power distance cultures tend to be highly individualistic while large power
distance cultures collectivistic. Therefore, based on our earlier argumentation for the
dimension of individualism and collectivism, we put forth that:
H5. Consumers in smaller power distance cultures will display a higher
propensity to innovate than those in larger power distance cultures.
H6. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will display a higher propensity
to imitate than those in smaller power distance cultures.
IMR H7. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will be more susceptible to
normative influences than those in smaller power distance cultures.
23,2
H8. Consumers in larger power distance cultures will display a higher propensity
to be influenced by interpersonal communications than those in smaller
power distance cultures.
178 Uncertainty avoidance
Uncertainty avoidance is how a society deals with the fact that time runs only one way
and that we have to live with uncertainty because the future is unknown and always
will be. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures accept this uncertainty and tend to take
each day as it comes, taking risks rather easily, and being more tolerant of behaviour
and opinions different from their own because they do not feel threatened by them.
Since, consumer innovativeness involves a certain degree of risk taking, it can be
expected that:
H9. Consumers in weaker uncertainty avoidance cultures will display a higher
propensity to innovate than those in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures.
Strong uncertainty avoidance cultures try to overcome the uncertainty associated with
the unknown future with institutions like religion and its people tend to have a higher
level of anxiety because of the high level of uncertainty they associate with the future.
These cultures are highly intolerant of ambiguity as a result of which, they tend to be
distrustful of new ideas and stick to historically tested patterns of behaviour. As a
consequence, consumers in strong uncertainty avoidance cultures are likely to wait for
others to try out a new product or idea and base their behaviour on the experiences of
others. Therefore:
H10. Consumers in strong uncertainty avoidance cultures will display a higher
propensity to imitate than those in less strong uncertainty avoidance cultures.
In order to minimise the anxiety associated with new behaviour and purchases,
individuals from strong uncertainty avoidance cultures would tend to follow tested
patterns of behaviour recommended by others. Subsequently, they will be more
concerned with how others expect them to behave and will be more eager to gather
information from those around them. So we propose that:
H11. Consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures will be more
susceptible to normative influences than those in less strong uncertainty
avoidance cultures.
H12. Consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures are going to display a
higher propensity to be influenced by interpersonal communications than that
in less strong uncertainty avoidance cultures.

Masculinity and femininity

The fourth cultural dimension of masculinity refers to the importance a culture places
on the perceived masculine traits like high earnings, recognition, achievement,
assertiveness, advancement, challenge, etc. On the other hand, femininity is
characterised by nurturance, care giving, co-operation, etc. More masculine societies
are expected to place an emphasis on wealth, achievement, success, etc. which might be
indirectly reflected in individual’s material possessions and the quantity or variety of Cultural
the possessions. Individuals from such societies would therefore be expected to be differences
more curious of new products in the marketplace which would help them display their
achievements so we hypothesise that:
H13. Consumers in more masculine cultures will display a higher propensity to
innovate than that in less masculine cultures.
179
Since, feminine cultures are characterised by care giving and co-operation, individuals
from these cultures are more likely to conform to social norms and be influenced by the
opinions of others. Therefore, it is expected that:
H14. Consumers in more feminine cultures will display a higher propensity to
imitate than that in less feminine cultures.
H15. Consumers in more feminine cultures will be more susceptible to normative
influences than those in less feminine cultures.
Care-giving and co-operation are usually accompanied by closer ties between the
individuals in the society which should be more favourable for interpersonal
communications to take place, so we suggest that:
H16. Consumers in more feminine cultures are going to display a higher propensity
to be influenced by interpersonal communications than that in less feminine
cultures.

Methodology
Data collection
Data were collected by a phone survey in France and Germany of 152 and 151
respondents, respectively. Because of the primary researcher and the assistants based
in a country other than France and Germany, and the limited resources available for
the data collection, an in-person survey was not deemed feasible. Response rates from
mail surveys have been declining from its traditional 20 per cent (Baruch, 1999).
Not only low response rates challenge the validity of the results from mail surveys but
also require considerable use of time and effort on the part of the researcher which is
not often suitably rewarded (Griffis et al., 2003). The final questionnaire was short
enough and did not require the respondents to be exposed to any visual stimuli, which
was conducive to a phone survey. Hence, a phone survey appeared to be the most
viable solution under the given circumstances.
The respondents in France were randomly selected from the Paris phone directory
while those in Germany from the Munich phone directory. A total of 429 people were
reached by phone in Paris out of which 152 agreed to respond to the questionnaire. A total
of 941 residents of Munich were reached, 151 of which agreed to participate in the survey.
One of the major problems with a telephone survey is the refusal to participate. In an
examination of 182 studies, the median refusal rate for telephone interviewing was
found to be 28 per cent (Wiseman and McDonald, 1978). The refusal rate in both of our
samples has been quite high, almost 65 per cent in the case of the French sample and 84
per cent in that of the German one. While adding to the costs of the data collection, refusal
rates also bias the sample results but not much can be done about it, as there is little
possibility of comparing refusers with non-refusers (Streubbe et al., 1986).
IMR We can only make guesses as to why almost twice as many people needed to be
23,2 contacted in Munich than in Paris in order to achieve the same sample size: the data
collectors had remarked that the people rung up in Paris were extremely curious about
the survey and were quite taken by the fact that they were being contacted from
outside of France for it. No such reaction was noted in the case of the Germans.

180 Measures
The questionnaire was developed using three stages. First, it was developed in English
by the principal researcher to be translated into French and German by native
speakers. The French and German versions of the questionnaires were then
back-translated into English by a different French and German speaker.
The back-translated version of the questionnaire was compared with the original
English questionnaire to pin down any changes in the meaning of the questions that
might have occurred as a result of translation and the few discrepancies in the
questions were resolved after discussing with the translators. The questionnaire was
pre-tested in both the languages, using a convenience sample of friends of the data
collectors, and further ambiguities in the wording that hampered understanding or
affected the responses were amended.
Consumer innovativeness was operationalised using the consumer-specific
exploratory acquisition of products (EAP) scale developed by Baumgartner and
Steenkamp (1996) which is designed to measure the tendency to seek sensory
stimulation in product purchase through innovative product choices and variation in
purchases. Subjects respond to ten items on a five-point scale, ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree for each of the items and the EAP is the sum of the
individual responses. The internal psychometric properties and the actual
manifestations of innovative behaviour, as measured by this scale, have been
extensively validated by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996). Even though some of the
items of the scale relate to the consumption of specific products, this scale gave
comparable results across product categories, thus ascertaining its validity (Bearden
and Netermeyer, 1999). A shortened version of the EAP with five of the highest-loading
items was used successfully by Steenkamp et al. (1999) in a cross-national investigation
of antecedents of consumer innovativeness. The scale that we used in our study is
presented in Appendix 1.
Consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence was measured using Bearden
et al.’s (1989) scale. This 12-item scale is designed to capture both normative and
informational influences, measured on a seven-point rating scale ranging from strongly
agree to strongly disagree. In the original study, the coefficient as for the normative and
informational influences were reported to be 0.88 and 0.82 (n ¼ 220), respectively. Two
external judgmental rating procedures supported the ability of the scale to explain
susceptibility to interpersonal influences, thus confirming its validity. The scale was
further examined and validated in a follow-up study by the same authors (Bearden et al.,
1990) and has consistently demonstrated to be reliable and valid (Schroeder, 1996). It has
also been used in a variety of settings: D’Rozario and Choudhury (2000) used it to
compare the differences in assimilation of various ethnic groups in the United States,
while Kropp et al. (1999) examined the smokers and beer drinkers on this dimension.
Diffusion of any product in a given society is very much dependent on both
normative as well as interpersonal influences, therefore, the scale developed by
Bearden et al. (1989) with its two dimensions was deemed appropriate for our purposes. Cultural
However, we modified this scale to be measured on a five-point scale in order to match differences
the measures of consumer innovativeness and information acquisition. It was also felt
that it would be less complicated for respondents to visualise a five-point scale as
compared to a seven-point scale because the questionnaire was going to be conducted
on the phone. The scale is presented in Appendix 2. In addition, certain measures of
the respondents’ socio-demographic variables like age, gender, income, and education 181
were also taken.

Data analysis and results

The examination of the hypothesised effects required the creation of new dependent
variables from the measures taken in the questionnaire. The 12 questions measuring
susceptibility to interpersonal influence were expected to reflect informational
influence (four items) and normative influences (eight items). In order to confirm this,
factor analysis was performed on the 12 questions measuring interpersonal influence
using oblique rotation of the initial solution. An orthogonal rotation is appropriate
when the researcher is interested in reducing the original number of variables whereas
oblique rotations are recommended when the goal is to obtain several theoretically
meaningful factors or constructs. Instead of the expected two factors the solution
resulted in four factors using eigen values of greater than one as the factor extraction
criterion. The rotated solution is presented in Table I where the numbers in italic
represent the question loading on the corresponding factor.
Questions loading on the same factor were examined in order to assign a label to each
of the factors so that some meaning could be provided to the pattern of factor loadings.
Factor four was ignored for this purpose and not used in future analysis as it was made
up of only a single variable. The five questions loading on factor one all relate to the
importance respondents attach to the opinions of others to behave accordingly and was
therefore labelled as “susceptibility to normative influence”. Factor two had three
questions loading on it, all of which measured the respondents’ information seeking
behaviour from others and was accordingly called “susceptibility for interpersonal
communication”. Questions 2, 6, and 12 are measures of how likely the respondents are
to imitate the behaviour of others, all three of which loaded significantly on the third
factor which was consequently labelled “propensity to imitate”.
The measures thus created were tested for their reliability. Cronbach’s a for the factor
isolated as “susceptibility to normative influences” was 0.725, 0.674 for “susceptibility to
interpersonal communications” and 0.673 for “propensity to imitate”. A Cronbach’s a of
0.7 and over is considered desirable for the internal consistency of a scale. However, only
one of the three scales created here, the “susceptibility to normative influence”, had an
a . 0.7. The other two measures displayed an a slightly under the recommended 0.7,
which could be because of the two measures having fewer items than the first scale the
Cronbach a is known to be sensitive to the number of items in the scale (Pallant, 2003).
Since, it is not unusual to obtain a low Cronbach’s a (e.g. 0.5) with scales having less than
ten items and the value was only slightly under the recommended ideal of 0.7, the two
scales were considered acceptable for further analysis.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with country as the categorical
independent variable and consumer innovativeness, normative influence, interpersonal
communication and propensity to imitate as the dependent variables. The ANOVA
IMR
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
23,2
Q1 You often consult other people to help
choose the best alternative available from
different brands 20.114 0.649 29.972E-02 23.040E-02
Q2 If you want to be like someone, you
182 often try to buy the same brands that they
buy 28.017E-02 4.232E-02 2 0.842 2 0.229
Q3 It is important that others like the
products and brands you buy 0.669 0.104 24.442E-02 2 0.362
Q4 To make sure you buy the right
product or brand, you often observe what
others are buying and using 0.438 0.416 20.106 2 0.247
Q5 You rarely purchase the latest fashion
styles until you are sure your friends
approve of them 6.693E-02 0.195 26.242E-02 0.814
Q6 You often identify with other people
by purchasing the same products and
brands they purchase 3.738E-02 1.008E-02 2 0.779 0.201
Q7 If you have little experience with a
product, you often ask your friends about
the product 6.959E-02 0.819 0.189 9.811E-02
Q8 When buying products, you generally
purchase those brands that you think
others will approve of 0.746 2 0.125 8.641E-02 0.247
Q9 You like to know what brands and
products make good impressions on
others 0.762 8.592E-02 21.128E-02 4.114E-02
Q10 You frequently gather information
from friends or family about a product
before you buy 5.898E-03 0.811 28.961E-02 0.131
Q11 If other people can see you using a
product, you often purchase the brand
they expect you to buy 0.568 2 7.986E-02 20.299 6.096E-02
Table I. Q12 You achieve a sense of belonging by
Factor solution with purchasing the same products and brands
oblique rotation that others purchase 0.311 5.998E-03 2 0.535 0.241

results indicated significant differences between the two countries on consumer

innovativeness, normative influence, and interpersonal communications with all the
corresponding p-values being less than 0.05, but no significant differences between
respondents from France and Germany were found in their propensity to imitate.
These results are summarized in Table II.

Dependent variable F P-value

Consumer innovativeness 6.46 0.012

Propensity to imitate 0.21 0.645
Table II. Normative influence 21.68 0.000
Results from the ANOVA Interpersonal communications 7.09 0.008
In order to evaluate the hypotheses and to interpret the results, it was necessary to Cultural
examine the means for the two countries on the variables being studied and also the differences
scores of the two countries on the four cultural dimensions of Hofstede. These are
presented in Tables III and IV, respectively.
Rather than discussing each of the hypotheses sequentially, we will deliberate
upon the dependent variables across the four cultural dimensions developed by
Hofstede. 183
Consumer innovativeness
The ANOVA results showed significant differences between France and Germany in
their propensity to innovate. Once this was established, the means for each of the
cultural dimensions for the two countries were examined to evaluate the individual
hypotheses.
It was proposed that subjects from a culture higher in individualism were likely to
have a higher propensity to innovate than those from a culture relatively lower on
individualism. France has a higher score on individualism than Germany (Table IV)
which would imply that the French sample would have a higher propensity to
innovate. But when one examines the means for the two countries on their innovative
behaviour, Germany has a higher mean at 2.89 compared to that of France at 2.70.
Thus, Germans display a higher level of innovative behaviour than the French and H1
is not supported.
It was predicted that consumers in smaller power distance cultures would exhibit a
higher propensity to innovate. Germany, which has a smaller power distance than
France, displayed a higher level of innovativeness. Therefore, H5 is supported.
Consumers from a culture having weaker uncertainty avoidance were expected to
display a higher level of innovative behaviour than those from a less weak uncertainty
avoidance one. Germans have a weaker uncertainty avoidance culture than the French,
and accordingly demonstrated to participate in innovative behaviour more than the
French thus, providing support for H9.

France Germany
Dependent variable n ¼ 152 n ¼ 151

Consumer innovativeness 2.70 2.89

Propensity to imitate 1.51 1.55 Table III.
Normative influence 2.39 1.95 Means for the two
Interpersonal communications 2.64 2.94 countries

Cultural dimension France Germany

Individualism/collectivism 71 67
Power distance 68 35
Uncertainty avoidance 86 65
Masculinity/femininity 43 66 Table IV.
Scores on cultural
Source: Hofstede (1983) dimensions
IMR It was hypothesized that individuals belonging to more masculine cultures would
23,2 demonstrate a higher level of innovativeness. Germany displays a more masculine
tendency than France and consequently we found that Germans were more involved in
innovative behaviour than the French were, thus finding support for H13.

Propensity to imitate
184 The results from the ANOVA indicated that there were no significant differences for
the two countries being examined when it came to their likelihood of imitating
behaviour. Therefore, H2, H6, H10, and H14 were not supported by our data.

Normative influence
The results from the data analysis indicated that there are significant differences
between the two countries regarding normative influences on consumption behaviour,
therefore, the means were examined to validate the hypotheses relating to each of the
four cultural dimensions.
Since, consumers in a more collectivistic society are more likely to conform to
existing norms, it was hypothesised that normative influences on their behaviour
would be higher than on individuals from a less collectivistic society. Germany
demonstrated to be more collectivist than France in Hofstede’s (1980) study but tended
to be less influenced by norms in our study with a mean of 1.95 which compared to a
mean of 2.39 for France. Hence, H3 was not supported.
H7 had proposed that consumers from a large power distance culture would be
more likely to be susceptible to normative influences. France with a much larger power
distance score than Germany, had a mean of 2.39 for normative influences as compared
to that of 1.95 of Germany, and we can, therefore, conclude that there is support for H7.
It was expected that consumers in stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures would be
more likely to be influenced by normative influences than those from less strong
uncertainty avoidance cultures. This hypothesis was supported as French, with a
higher score of uncertainty avoidance culture than Germans, demonstrated to be more
susceptible to influences from others in their consumption.
Normative influences were anticipated to be higher in more feminine cultures when
compared to that in less feminine cultures. France being a more feminine culture than
Germany, would therefore be expected to demonstrate a greater tendency towards
normative influences. Indeed, the data show the French to be more liable to be
influenced by others than the Germans, validating H15.

Interpersonal communications
The ANOVA results pointed towards significant differences between the interpersonal
communications within each country so the means were examined to confirm or reject
the relevant hypotheses.
It was expected that the strong ties in collectivistic societies would be
more favourable to interpersonal communications. Germany was shown to be more
collectivistic than France and the data accordingly illustrated Germans to
be more influenced by interpersonal communications thus, providing support for H4.
Consumers in a larger power distance culture would be more apt to be influenced by
interpersonal communications in their purchases but our data showed otherwise.
Germans, with a smaller power distance culture, were found to be more likely to be
influenced by interpersonal communications than the French, therefore we did not find Cultural
any support for H8. differences
Consumers in high uncertainty avoidance cultures try to reduce their anxiety of the
uncertain by modelling their behaviour after the experiences of others, based on which
H12 had predicted consumers from stronger uncertainty avoidance cultures to be
predisposed towards interpersonal communications. France, which is stronger in
uncertainty avoidance than Germany, did not show such an inclination as a result of 185
which H12 was not supported.
Feminine cultures being characterised by co-operation are more likely to conform to
social norms and therefore, more likely to be influenced by interpersonal
communications. Even though France was shown to be a more feminine culture
than Germany, the French did not turn out to be more likely to participate in
interpersonal communications by our data. As a result we had to reject H16.

Discussion and conclusion

The basis of this research paper was offered as a means of separating the innovators
from the imitators in order to compare the diffusion of new products and ideas in
countries distinguished by different national cultures. We were, however, not
successful in isolating significant cultural differences in imitative behaviour. Instead,
the moderating role of culture is used to explain whether or not individuals in a given
society display innovative behaviour and also how information about consumption is
disseminated or exchanged. We start with examining the inferences from the results
for each of the dependent variables that resulted in significant differences between the
two countries being studied.
Our results indicate that consumer innovativeness is linked with three of the four
cultural dimensions developed by Hofstede. Except for the dimension relating to
“individualism” in a culture, all the dimensions were coupled with innovative
consumption behaviour. Cultures with smaller power distances, weaker uncertainty
avoidance and/or more masculine tendencies are likely to participate in innovative
behaviour according to the results provided by our data. The most innovative
behaviour would therefore, be expected to be found in cultures characterised by two or
more of the mentioned qualities. Innovativeness decreases as power distances or
uncertainty avoidance within a culture increase or the culture becomes less masculine.
Three of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were found to significantly have some
bearing on the normative influences on consumers’ behaviour. Individualism/
collectivism in a culture was the only factor not associated with the degree of influence
others have on individuals’ consumption related behaviour. It was established that
cultures with larger power distances, stronger uncertainty avoidance, and/or more
feminine nature were likely to be more susceptible to be swayed by others’ opinions of
their behaviour. Any culture distinguished by one or more of the above-mentioned
traits, is going to be highly receptive to normative influences on behaviour.
Only the dimension of individualism/collectivism was found to be significantly
associated with interpersonal communications. Specifically, the less individualistic a
society the more likely were individuals from such a society to be influenced by
interpersonal communications. Based on our data, none of the other dimensions
impacted the likelihood of respondents being affected by information exchange with
others.
IMR To summarise the findings from our study, we do find partial support for the
23,2 framework we proposed. We had suggested that consumers’ propensity to innovate or
imitate would depend on the culture they belong to. While we did find significant
differences across cultures in consumers’ propensity to innovate, we did not find
noteworthy variations in consumers’ propensity to imitate. We had also projected
national culture to influence the way individuals are going to be convinced into
186 partaking in new or innovative behaviour, which we found partial support for. Not
only do the findings emphasise the importance of national culture in explaining
methodical differences in innovative behaviour but also the role it plays in suggesting
different communication strategies to be employed for persuading consumers into
participating in new kinds of behaviour.

Implications for marketers

The findings of this study validate our initial contention that innovation orientation
varies from culture to culture and this has strong implications for marketers, especially
those operating in an international arena, by providing guidelines on communication
strategies when introducing new products or services in a market. New products
introduced in cultures characterised by small power distances, weak uncertainty
avoidance and/or masculinity would have little trouble in being accepted as our study
has shown these characteristics to be conducive to adoption of things novel. In these
cultures, marketers would be advised to emphasise the unique and new features of
their products to catch the attention of the consumers’ and to appeal to their aspiration
for things new. Rational, as opposed to emotional, arguments that stress product
features and benefits would be recommended in these markets. In addition,
comparative advertising, where permitted, should be used to highlight the superiority
of the new product. Small power distance cultures respect knowledge therefore, the use
of experts endorsing the new product would be recommended to reach consumers in
these markets.
However, in case of marketing to cultures where the power distances are large,
uncertainty avoidances strong and/or existence of femininity, marketers would be well
advised to employ normative influences to coax consumers into accepting the new
products and ideas. Interpersonal communication is suggested as a tactic for ready
acceptance of innovative products in markets that tend to be more collectivistic.
Cultures dominated by high power distance cultures are accustomed to a
hierarchical form of communication where they readily accept what they are told by
others. It would be recommended that role models or authority figures be used in
communications to cultures with large power distances, advising the consumer on the
use of the product.
Markets characterised by high uncertainty avoidance tendencies are greatly
concerned with risks and look for mechanisms to avoid them. Guarantees, after sales
service and lenient refund policies would work well as mechanisms to reduce perceived
risk and scepticism towards new products.
Feminine cultures demonstrate a concern for social norms and the opinion of others.
These markets show a strong tendency to imitate which could be facilitated with
communications involving opinion of relevant others. Sales people and opinion leaders
in such markets extolling the virtues of the product would facilitate its acceptance.
Distribution of free samples, where possible, would enable the consumers to see the
product in use. Since, imitation is the dominant trait in these cultures, observing the Cultural
product in use would attract them to into copying the behaviour of others. differences
Contributions
With a few exceptions (Gatignon et al., 1989; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Takada and Jain,
1991), research on examining cross-cultural adoption of innovations has been limited.
This paper applies the diffusion theory across cultures and predicts outcomes based on 187
cultural differences prevalent in the society. In addition, it links different ways of
influencing and persuading adoption of new behaviour with the culture of the society.
While Hofstede’s (1983, 1991), dimensions of cultural differences have been used in
explaining differences in adoption of innovations, not all of the four dimensions have
been employed (Steenkamp et al., 1999). The setting offered here takes all of the four
dimensions into consideration to predict the outcomes.
Research on different adopter categories has been riddled with problems of
measurement as most of the studies have been cross-sectional instead of longitudinal,
making it difficult to capture the constructs in question. The classification of adopters
into the categories of innovators and imitators offers a straightforward, albeit a simple
means, of studying differences across various adopter groups.
The classification of adopters into innovators and imitators presents practitioners
with a simple segmentation criterion. The proposed responses of the two groups to new
products and ideas and their predisposition to be influenced by external sources offers
marketers avenues for developing and directing their communication strategies when
operating in international markets.

Limitations and future research

As with any research work, this study has some limitations which open up avenues for
further research. The study has limited the empirical testing of the hypothesized effects
to France and Germany which might affect the generalisability of the results. This
study has been a starting point to demonstrate that even though cultures may be
similar in several respects, consumers from these cultures differ in their responses to
marketers’ efforts. This point can be reinforced with the inclusion of more countries in
a study with a broader scope. Such a study would be even more relevant in view of the
recent new inclusions in the European Union of the eastern European countries.
Indexes for the four cultural dimensions were borrowed from previously conducted
study of Hofstede (1983). These indexes were developed based on work-related values
which may well not be transferred to those of consumers. In addition, the scales might be
outdated and hence have a bearing on the validity of the results. Hofstede’s scale have
been extremely popular in cross-cultural studies and despite the passage of time, still
serve the purposes of many a researcher. Future studies could still use Hofstede’s four
dimensions as a basis to develop scales that are more relevant to consumers’ attitudes
and behaviours. A contrasting of the findings using the two scales would provide useful
insight to researchers and reshape the research in cross-cultural comparisons.
The high rate of refusal of the subjects to participate in the survey might have
resulted in a biased sample and therefore, the findings from this study should be
interpreted with this in mind. Little can be done to determine if there are significant
differences between the refusers and non-refusers of this study but future studies could
focus on acquiring samples that are assuredly unbiased.
IMR The scale used for measuring consumers’ adoption of innovative products includes
23,2 items that measure innovative behaviour in general and not necessarily towards a
particular product category. It is a commonly held belief that while consumers may be
innovators in one product category, they may quite possibly be laggards in another.
That is, the construct of innovation adoption is a product specific trait rather than a
general one. Thus, the findings from our study may not be as generalisable as they
188 may seemingly appear. However, the scale was applied in different products with
comparable results (Bearden et al., 1990).
We did not obtain clear-cut factors in our factor solution of the scale measuring
consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence. Although the scale has proven to
be robust and suitable in previous studies, future studies could compare this scale with
other similar scales to better capture the construct.

References
Baruch, Y. (1999), “Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis”, Human
Relations, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 421-38.
Bass, F.M. (1969), “A new product growth model for consumer durables”, Management Science,
Vol. 15, pp. 215-27.
Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1996), “Exploratory consumer buying behaviour:
conceptualization and measurement”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 13, pp. 121-37.
Bearden, W.O. and Netermeyer, R.G. (1999), Handbook of Marketing Scales, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Bearden, W.O., Netermeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1989), “Measurement of consumer susceptibility
to interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 473-81.
Bearden, W.O., Netermeyer, R.G. and Teel, J.E. (1990), “Further validation of the consumer
susceptibility to interpersonal influence scale”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17,
pp. 770-6.
Clark, T. (1990), “International marketing and national character: a review and proposal for an
integrative theory”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 66-79.
Delener, N. and Neelankavil, J.P. (1990), “Informational sources and media usage: a comparison
between Asian and Hispanic subcultures”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 45-52.
Douglas, S. and Wind, Y. (1987), “The myth of globalization”, Columbia Journal of World
Business, pp. 19-29.
D’Rozario, D. and Choudhury, P.K. (2000), “Effect of assimilation on consumer susceptibility to
interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 290-307.
Engel, J.F., Blackwell, R.D. and Miniard, P.W. (1993), Consumer Behaviour, The Dryden Press,
Fort Worth, TX.
Foxall, G.R. (1988), “Consumer innovativeness: novelty seeking, creativity, and cognitive style”,
in Hirschman, E.C. and Sheth, J. (Eds), Research in Consumer Behaviour,Vol. 3, JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT, pp. 79-113.
Gatignon, H., Eliahshberg, J. and Robertson, T.S. (1989), “Modelling multinational diffusion
patterns: an efficient methodology”, Marketing Science, Vol. 8, pp. 231-47.
Green, R.T. and Langeard, E. (1975), “A cross-national comparison of consumer habits and
innovator characteristics”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39, pp. 34-41.
Griffis, S.E., Goldsby, T.J. and Cooper, M. (2003), “Web-based and mail surveys: a comparison of Cultural
response, data and cost”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 237-58.
differences
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), “Innovativeness, novelty seeking, and consumer creativity”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 7, pp. 283-95.
Hirschman, E.C. (1981), “American Jewish ethnicity: its relationship to some selected aspects of
consumer behaviour”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 45, pp. 102-10.
Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, 189
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hofstede, G. (1983), “The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 14, pp. 75-90.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill
International, New York, NY.
Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M. and Holden, S.J.S. (1999), “Smokers and beer drinkers: values and
consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence”, Journal of Consumer Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 6, pp. 536-57.
Levitt, T. (1983), “The globalization of markets”, Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 92-102.
McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, pp. 71-84.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F.M. (1990), “New product diffusion models in marketing: a
review and directions for research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-26.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), “Innovativeness: the concept and its measurement”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 229-42.
Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), “National culture and new product development: an
integrative review”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 61-72.
O’Guinn, T.C. and Meyer, T.P. (1984), “Segmenting the Hispanic market: the use of Spanish
language radio”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 23, pp. 9-16.
Pallant, J. (2003), SPSS Survival Manual, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Ram, S. and Jung, H. (1994), “Innovativeness in product usage: a comparison of early adopters
and early majority”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Rogers, E. (1976), “New product adoption and diffusion”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 290-301.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schroeder, J.E. (1996), “An analysis of the consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence
scale”, Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 585-99.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., Hofstede, F.T. and Wedel, M. (1999), “A cross-national investigation into the
individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 55-69.
Streubbe, J.M., Kernan, J.B. and Grogan, T.J. (1986), “The refusal problem in telephone surveys”,
Journal of Advertising Research, June/July, pp. 29-37.
Takada, H. and Jain, D. (1991), “Cross-national analysis of diffusion of consumer durable goods
in pacific rim countries”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 48-54.
Tellefsen, T. and Takada, H. (1999), “The relationship between mass media availability and the
multicountry diffusion of consumer products”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 7
No. 1, pp. 77-96.
IMR Whitelock, J. and Rey, J-C. (1998), “Cross-cultural advertising in Europe. An empirical survey of
television advertising in France and the UK”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15
23,2 No. 4, pp. 257-76.
Wiseman, F. and McDonald, P. (1978), The Nonresponse Problem in Consumer Telephone
Surveys, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

190 Further reading

Fisher, R.J. and Price, L.L. (1992), “An investigation into the social context of early adoption
behaviour”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, pp. 477-86.
Ganesh, J. (1998), “Converging trends within the European union: insights from an analysis of
diffusion patterns”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 32-48.
Im, S., Bayus, B.L. and Manson, C.H. (2003), “An empirical study of innate consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behaviour”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Lee, C. (1990), “Determinants of national innovativeness and international market segmentation”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 7 No. 5, pp. 39-49.
Ridgway, N.M. and Price, L.L. (1884), “Exploration in product usage: a model of use
innovativeness”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Van Everdingen, Y.M. and Waarts, E. (2003), “The effect of national culture on the adoption of
innovations”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 217-32.
Yaveroglu, I.S. and Donthu, N. (2002), “Cultural influences on the diffusion of new products”,
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 49-63.

Appendix 1. Scale measuring exploratory acquisition of products

.
Even though certain food products are available in a number of different flavours, you
tend to buy the same flavours.
.
You would rather stick with a brand you usually buy than try something you are not very
sure of.
.
You think of yourself as a brand-loyal consumer.
.
When you see a new brand on the shelf, you are not afraid of giving it a try.
. When you go to a restaurant, you feel it is safer to order dishes you are familiar with.
.
If you like a brand, you rarely switch from it just to try something different.
.
You are very cautious in trying new or different products.
.
You enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands just to get some variety in your
purchases.
.
You rarely buy brands about which you are uncertain how well they perform.
.
You usually eat the same kind of foods on a regular basis.

Appendix 2. Scale measuring consumers’ susceptibility to interpersonal influence

.
You often consult other people to help choose the best alternative available from different
brands.
.
If you want to be like someone, you often try to buy the same brands that they buy.
.
It is important that others like the products and brands you buy.
 .
To make sure you buy the right product or brand, you often observe what others are Cultural
buying and using.
.
You rarely purchase the latest fashion styles until you are sure your friends approve of
differences
them.
.
You often identify with other people by purchasing the same products and brands they
purchase.
.
If you have little experience with a product, you often ask your friends about the product. 191
.
When buying products, you generally purchase those brands that you think others will
approve of.
.
You like to know what brands and products make good impressions on others.
.
You frequently gather information from friends or family about a product before you buy.
. If other people can see you using a product, you often purchase the brand they expect you
to buy.
.
You achieve a sense of belonging by purchasing the same products and brands that others
purchase.

Corresponding author
Sangeeta Singh can be contacted at: sangeeta.singh@bi.no

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints