The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.

com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

International Marketing Review 18,1 30

The role of national culture in international marketing research

Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Keywords National cultures, International marketing, Acculturation, Marketing research Abstract Reviews and discusses the role of national culture in international marketing research. Special emphasis is given to national cultural frameworks. The two main national cultural frameworks the Hofstede and the Schwartz are discussed. Their interrelations are examined and four comprehensive national-cultural dimensions are derived autonomy versus collectivism, egalitarianism versus hierarchy, mastery versus nurturance, and uncertainty avoidance. The usefulness of national culture as an analytical basis in international marketing research is discussed and the construct of national culture is placed in the context of layers of culture, ranging from global cultures to micro cultures. Acculturation processes to other national cultures and antecedents of national culture are examined. The paper ends with concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.

Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp

International Marketing Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, 2001, pp. 30-44. # MCB University Press, 0265-1335

Introduction A country's culture has long been identified as a key environmental characteristic underlying systematic differences in behavior. Cultural norms and beliefs are powerful forces shaping people's perceptions, dispositions, and behaviors (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Culture is reflected in ``general tendencies of persistent preference for particular states of affairs over others, persistent preferences for specific social processes over others, and general rules for selective attention, interpretation of environmental cues, and responses'' (Tse et al., 1988, p. 82). The failure to take cultural differences between countries into account has been the cause of many business failures (Ricks, 1993). Moreover, many of our marketing theories have been developed and validated only in Western countries, particularly the USA. The further advancement of marketing as an academic discipline requires that the validity of our theories and models be examined in other cultural settings as well to identify their degree of generalizability and to uncover boundary conditions. Studying the role of national culture in marketing teaches us ``the many ways in which our theories and paradigms are a reflection of the culture in which they were developed'' (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999, p. 364). For example, well-known theories and approaches such as cognitive dissonance, attribution theory, preference modeling, and individual choice modeling, to name just a few, may not apply to collectivistic cultures without modifications (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999). The purpose of this article is to review the role of national culture in international marketing research with special emphasis being given to national cultural frameworks. We first discuss the two main national cultural

frameworks and explore their interrelations as a first step to arriving at a unified national cultural framework. Next, we examine the usefulness of national culture as an analytical basis in international marketing research and place national culture in the context of layers of culture, ranging from global cultures to micro cultures. Then, we review processes through which individuals acculturate to other cultures. Subsequently, we examine antecedents of national culture. The paper ends with concluding remarks and suggestions for future research. National cultural frameworks National culture has numerous facets. Some facets may be relevant only for a particular society, others for multiple, if not all, societies. In this paper, we concentrate on facets that are relevant to multiple societies. In the past, crosscultural research was sometimes perceived to be less rigorous because sound, theory-based national-cultural frameworks were lacking. Valid frameworks delineating dimensions of national cultural variation are crucial in creating a nomological framework that is capable of integrating diverse attitudinal and behavioral phenomena and provides a basis for developing hypotheses explaining systematic variation between cultures in attitudes and behavior (Smith et al., 1996). Such frameworks are necessary to move international marketing research beyond exploratory, qualitative comparisons, which are difficult to validate or replicate. Two rigorous, comprehensive frameworks have been developed in the last two decades the Hofstede (1980, 1991) and the Schwartz (1994, 1997). These frameworks can be used by the international marketing researcher for crossnational theorizing and for designing studies. They serve as the point of departure for understanding different layers of culture, for starting to understand and test antecedents of national culture, and for assessing cultural stability, among others. Hofstede's framework Hofstede (1980, 1991) developed by far the most influential national cultural framework. Using a combination of empirical and eclectic analyses, Hofstede derived and defined four dimensions of cultural variation individualism/ collectivism, power distance, masculinity/femininity, and uncertainty avoidance. These dimensions are based on four fundamental problems which society faces: (1) the relationship between the individual and the group; (2) social inequality; (3) social implications of gender; and (4) handling of uncertainty inherent in economic and social processes. Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) have reported 1,101 citations to his work in the period 1987-1997. Fernandez et al. (1997, pp. 43-4) call it ``a watershed

The role of national culture

31

International Marketing Review 18,1 32

conceptual foundation for many subsequent cross-national research endeavors''. His framework has been applied to investigate a number of marketing issues such as the use of humor in ads (Alden et al., 1993), response style tendencies (Baumgartner and Steenkamp, 1999), consumer responses to market signals of quality (Dawar and Parker, 1994), consumer tipping decisions (Lynn et al., 1993), new product development (Nakata and Sivakumar, 1996), brand market share (Roth, 1995), and consumer innovativeness (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Hofstede (1991) provides the ratings of 50 countries and three regions on these dimensions. Nevertheless, the Hofstede framework is not without its limitations. The correspondence between the items used to measure the cultural dimensions and the conceptual definition of these dimensions is tenuous. It is also not clear whether the items have the same meaning in different countries. Country scores are based on matched samples of IBM employees, which are not necessarily representative for their countries. This may apply especially to less-developed countries. Data collection took place in 1967-1973, although Hoppe (1990) conducted an update for 19 countries in 1984 and found reasonable stability (rs varying between 0.56 and 0.69). Hofstede's items refer to work-related values, which might not completely overlap with priorities of people in other roles (e.g. consumers). Hofstede's dimension of masculinity/femininity has been criticized as being time- and context- specific. Schwartz's framework More recently, Schwartz (1994, 1997), Schwartz and Ros (1995), Smith and Schwartz (1997) have proposed an alternative framework. Schwartz's framework is based on his seminal work on human values but it is not wellknown in marketing. He identified three basic societal issues: (1) relations between individual and group; (2) assuring responsible social behavior; and (3) the role of humankind in the natural and social world. The cultural adaptations to resolve each of these issues constitute his framework, which consists of three bipolar dimensions, defining seven national-cultural domains. The first dimension contrasts conservatism versus autonomy. Conservatism describes cultures in which the person is looked upon as an entity who is embedded in the collectivity. Emphasis is given to maintenance of the status quo, propriety, and restraint of actions that might disrupt the solidarity of a group or the existing order. Autonomy describes cultures in which the person is viewed as an autonomous, bounded entity who finds meaning in their own uniqueness and seeks to express their own internal attributes. Two types of autonomy are distinguished. Intellectual autonomy refers to ideas and thoughts, the right of individuals to follow their own intellectual directions. Affective autonomy refers to feelings and emotions, the right of individuals to

pursue their own affectively positive experiences. This dimension resembles Hofstede's individualism/collectivism dimension. However, while the Schwartz dimension focuses on the role of the individual within society and examines the extent to which a society views the individual as either autonomous or embedded in the group, Hofstede's individualism/collectivism focuses on the contrast between individual goals versus group goals. The second dimension contrasts hierarchy versus egalitarianism. One way to assure socially responsible behavior is through a hierarchical system of ascribed roles. It emphasizes the legitimacy of fixed roles and resource allocation. An alternative solution to the societal issue of responsible social behavior is to induce people to recognize that they have shared interests that can serve as bases for voluntary agreements to cooperate. In egalitarian cultures, people are socialized to internalize a commitment to voluntary cooperation with others and to feel concern for everyone's welfare. This cultural domain emphasizes transcendence of selfish interests. A society's response to the third societal issue of the relation of humankind to the surrounding natural and social world can take two forms. One response, labeled mastery, is to seek to actively master and change the world, to bend it to our will and to assert control, and on getting ahead through active selfassertion. Another response, labeled harmony, is to accept the world as it is, trying to preserve it rather than to change or exploit it. Schwartz (1994) provides ratings on the seven domains for 31 countries. Schwartz's framework is based on empirical analyses of country-level responses of large groups of people (mostly students and teachers). There is a close match between the definition of the seven cultural domains and the items, and the items were shown to have similar meanings across cultures. The items are broader than Hofstede's work-related items. On the other hand, the type of items Schwartz had in his data sets limited the derivation of the cultural domains/dimensions. These items were developed to measure individual-level value dimensions. Moreover, whereas the usefulness of the Hofstede framework in international marketing is well established, Schwartz's framework has yet to be applied widely. However, given its strong theoretical foundations, it offers great potential for international marketing research. Thus, international marketing researchers have two well-developed national cultural schemes at their disposal. These are also based on extensive and globally dispersed samples. Dependent on one's theoretical predictions and the sample of nations, either or both of the schemes can be used. For example, Schwartz's sample of nations includes nine Eastern European countries, while Hofstede's data set contains more countries from South Asia and Latin America. Toward a unified national cultural framework? The conceptual description of the Hofstede and Schwartz dimensions/domains suggests at least some overlap between the two frameworks. We explored this issue formally by conducting a principal components analysis with promax

The role of national culture

33

International Marketing Review 18,1 34

rotation on the national cultural ratings on the four Hofstede dimensions and the seven Schwartz cultural domains together for 24 countries that were included in both data sets (Hofstede, 1991; Schwartz, 1994). The countries are shown in Table I. Countries from all continents except Africa could be included. Four factors explained 81 per cent of the variance. The first factor shows salient (>|0.5|) loadings (standardized regression coefficients) for intellectual autonomy (0.83; S), affective autonomy (0.94; S), conservatism (0.73; S), individualism (0.59; H), and power distance (0.73; H)[1]. This dimension deals with the extent to which persons in a society are autonomous versus embedded in groups. Power distance loads highly on this dimension, which is consistent with Hofstede (1980), who also was unable to separate empirically this dimension from individualism/collectivism. It appears that group-oriented, collectivistic societies that emphasize the status quo and restraint of actions that disrupt the group typically accept unequal distribution of power. Power distance also is related to conservatism with its emphasis on maintenance of the existing order. The second dimension reveals salient loadings for egalitarianism (0.87; S), hierarchy (0.96; S), and harmony (0.63; S). This dimension deals with how to consider the interests of other people and coordinate with them. This can be
Country Australia Brazil Denmark Finland France Germany (West) Greece Hong Kong Israel Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico The Netherlands New Zealand Portugal Singapore Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Turkey USA Note:
a

Autonomy 2 36 44 18 77 60 2 54 20 10 15 91 50 16 41 26 89 42 53 93 59 33 40 11

Egalitarianism 3 25 61 38 30 28 36 55 69 91 57 41 9 36 6 47 48 52 43 24 54 106 51 1

Mastery 30 8 58 98 41 15 72 20 11 30 83 36 51 53 39 6 34 15 92 32 12 45 45 70

Uncertainty avoidance 63 23 71 4 64 14 68 44 54 6 46 25 62 44 52 61 55 61 44 24 23 30 52 76

Table I. Country ratings on four generalised national-cultural dimensionsa

Factor scores 50

done by relying on hierarchical systems of ascribed roles or through a voluntary commitment to cooperate in harmony with others. Mastery (0.88; S) and masculinity (0.83; H) load highly on the third dimension. This dimension refers to the tendency to assertively try to control the social and natural world. The fourth dimension shows high loadings for uncertainty avoidance (0.79; H) and harmony (0.57; S). Maintaining harmony is one way to handle uncertainty, essentially by avoiding the uncertainty inherent in conflict. Thus, the first and the third dimension are largely shared by the two schemes: the relation between the individual and the group, and the emphasis on assertiveness and achievement. The second dimension, found in Schwartz's scheme but less clearly in Hofstede's work, pertains to the cultural mechanisms to assure responsible social behavior. A fourth dimension, more clearly delineated by Hofstede, is the ways in which society deals with uncertainty. Thus, this analysis suggests the following four national cultural dimensions: autonomy versus collectivism, egalitarianism versus hierarchy, mastery versus nurturance, and uncertainty avoidance. The first two dimensions are correlated 0.53. The other correlations are negligible (below 0.15). The relatively high correlation between the dimensions autonomy and egalitarianism is consistent with Schwartz and Ros (1995, pp. 97-8). That societies emphasizing conservatism will tend to emphasize hierarchy as well as the view of the person as embedded in a collectivity of mutually obligated others underlies both cultural domains. On the other hand, egalitarianism and autonomy share the view of the individual as an autonomous self. In high autonomy cultures where the person might naturally lack commitment to others, egalitarianism values are necessary for the smooth functioning of societal relations. In collectivistic cultures, identification with in-group members ensures concern of their welfare (Schwartz and Ros, 1995). Table I provides the score of each country on each dimension[2]. Two-stage cluster analysis (Ward's and K-means) was applied to the factor scores to identify ``culture areas''. The scree test indicated that the countries could be grouped in seven such areas: Anglo (USA, Australia, New Zealand, Israel), Western Europe (Germany, Switzerland, France, Spain), Nordic (Denmark, Sweden, Finland, The Netherlands), Latin (Italy, Portugal, Greece, Mexico), Far East (Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore), Japan, and a cluster that was labeled ``Other'' (Brazil, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey), but which was surprisingly tight. The key distinguishing feature of the Anglo cluster was that it rated lowest of all clusters on uncertainty avoidance. The Western European cluster rated highest of all on autonomy and high on uncertainty avoidance. The Nordic cluster rated highest of all on nurturance (lowest on mastery), with the Latin cluster highest on egalitarianism, and low on uncertainty avoidance. The Far East cluster rated the highest on collectivism (lowest on autonomy), high on hierarchy (low on egalitarianism), and low on uncertainty avoidance, while the Latin cluster rated highest on egalitarianism and uncertainty avoidance. Japan rated highest of all clusters on mastery and also very high on

The role of national culture

35

International Marketing Review 18,1 36

hierarchy and uncertainty avoidance. The ``Other'' cluster rated highest on hierarchy and high on collectivism. Usefulness of national culture as analytical basis Much cross-cultural work in marketing and other social science disciplines has used country as the basic unit of analysis (e.g. Lynn et al., 1993; Roth, 1995; Schwartz and Ros, 1995; Steenkamp et al., 1999). This should not be taken as an implication that country and culture are the same. National boundaries need not always coincide with culturally homogeneous societies. This raises the question: Can culture be validly conceptualized at the national level? A culture can be validly conceptualized at the national level if there exists some meaningful degree of within-country commonality and between-country differences in culture. The literature indicates that this is indeed the case. Hofstede (1991, p. 12) argued that today's nations ``are the source of a considerable amount of common mental programming of their citizens'' due to a relatively similar history, language, political, legal and educational environment, among others. This does not imply that countries are fully homogeneous, but that there are forces pushing to a meaningful degree of within-country commonality. Many others (e.g. Smith and Bond, 1993; Smith et al., 1996; Schwartz, 1994) share Hofstede's position. Moreover, the empirical work by Hofstede (1980; 1991), Hoppe (1990), Schwartz (1994), and Smith et al. (1996), among others, shows that there is systematic variation between countries on the national-cultural level. The countries are clearly separated from each other on national-cultural dimensions. If there were no degree of commonality within countries and diversity between countries, such results would be unlikely to emerge. Hofstede (1980) found that, even for countries that are less well culturally integrated, the different ethnic and/or linguistic groups have important commonality in culture in comparison to the population of other countries. Smith and Schwartz (1997, p. 112) report that cultural differences among samples from three regions in China, three in Japan, and five in the USA ``were dwarfed by the much larger differences between nations.'' Schwartz and Ros (1995) found across a sample of 13 countries that nation accounted for about three times more variance in the ratings on the items used to measure national culture than any within-national variable examined, such as gender, education, age, and marital status. Finally, conceptual and empirical studies in marketing and other social sciences that examine cultural effects at the country level have yielded many important and interesting insights (e.g. Alden et al., 1993; Lynn et al., 1993; Roth, 1995; Smith and Bond, 1993; Steenkamp et al., 1999; Tse et al., 1988). If there were no degree of within-country commonality and between-country differences in culture, such findings would be hard, if not impossible to achieve. Layers of culture It is important to recognize that the national level is not the only level at which culture can be operationalized. Schwartz and Ros (1995, p. 95) argue that

``Culture-level dimensions should be derived from analyses of the dynamics of conflict and compatibility that cultural groups experience when pursuing and justifying their actions''. These cultural groups can be defined and studied at different levels, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We can distinguish between meta (pan-regional, global) culture, national culture, and micro culture. Meta cultures Clusters of countries may exhibit a number of common pan-regional cultural characteristics (Ronen and Shenkar, 1985; Smith and Schwartz, 1997). The above cluster analysis on the combined Hofstede and Schwartz dimensions also revealed regions that are culturally quite distinct from each other. There is also growing evidence of emerging global cultures with emphasis on modernity, technology, freedom, and individual choice. These cultures are less crystallized as yet and are shared not so much between countries as between particular individuals within countries. Hannerz (1990, p. 237) notes that global cultures are developing as a result of the ``increasing interconnectedness of varied local cultures as well as through the development of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory''. People belonging to a global culture associate similar meanings with certain places, people and things (Alden et al., 1999a). They share sets of symbols (e.g. brands, consumption activities), experiences (e.g. travel), and attitudes (e.g. cosmopolitan outlook) (Hannerz, 1990) Appadurai (1990) proposes a particularly relevant diffusion framework for global culture with five paths of cross-cultural flow (termed ``scapes''). These are ``ethnoscapes'' (involving persons moving around the world as refugees, tourists, foreign students, immigrants, etc.), ``technoscapes'' (global configuration of technology), ``finanscapes'' (financial markets and money flows), ``ideoscapes'' (political ideas and ideologies), and ``mediascapes'' (the media themselves and the images of the world created by them). Of particular importance to marketing is the mediascape. Mass media programming, flowing primarily from the USA, has played a major role in the creation of global cultures (Appadurai, 1990). Some recent empirical research sheds light on the emergence of global cultures. Alden et al. (1999a) introduced the concept of global consumer culture positioning, while studies by Dawar and Parker (1994), ter Hofstede et al. (1999) and Wedel et al. (1998) provide evidence for the existence of pan-regional or global consumer segments. Micro cultures Whereas meta culture is even more general than national culture, micro or subculture is more specific. As societies become less homogeneous, due to for example, individualization and migration, it becomes increasingly important to study within-country cultural heterogeneity. A micro culture preserves important patterns of the national culture but also develops its own unique patterns of dispositions and behavior. Such micro cultures may be defined on

The role of national culture

37

International Marketing Review 18,1 38

various overlapping criteria, including, for example, language, ethnicity, religion, age, urbanization, and social class. The domain of micro culture is relatively understudied, and many issues still have to be resolved. For example, it is unclear whether micro cultures can be defined on common dimensions, like national cultures, and whether micro cultures share cultural characteristics across countries. The mutual influences of micro cultures and national culture also need more attention. Acculturation to another national culture With increasing cross-cultural contact and globalization of marketing activities, the issue of how individuals react to the national culture of other countries becomes increasingly important for marketers (Alden et al., 1999b). The most intense form is migration, where individuals move to another country. Many of the early acculturation models assumed a linear progression (Gordon, 1964) from arrival to ``assimilation'' within the national culture of the host country. Wallendorf and Reilly (1983) challenged the linear model and found that the Mexican-American immigrants in their sample consumed greater amounts of traditional American foods than did Anglos. They hypothesized that Mexican-Americans may have ``over-assimilated'' due to exaggerated mental representations of US life, in part from media imagery. Jun et al. (1993) argued that acculturation is best described as a Ushaped process. As such, it is hypothesized to begin with a ``honeymoon'' phase (similar to Wallendorf and Reilly's (1983) concept of ``overassimilation''), followed by a rejection phase and, ultimately, a more stable relationship with the host culture. However, as individuals move toward this equilibrium relationship, they may ``experience the honeymoon and rejection stage more than once,'' suggesting that the process is dynamic and cyclical (Jun et al., 1993, p. 77). Acculturation to another culture is most compelling in the case of actual migration but also occurs through other forms of cross-cultural contact. Two important ``milder'' forms are mass mediation and vicarious mass migration (Appadurai, 1996). Mass mediation may be local in scope but Appadurai (1996, p. 4) notes that ``few important films, news broadcasts or television spectacles are entirely unaffected by other media events that come from further afield.'' Mass media are a channel for transmitting events, images, and other information from other cultures. Concerning vicarious mass migration, Appadurai (1996, p. 4) argues that ``few people in the world today do not have a friend, relative, or co-worker who is not on the road to somewhere else or already coming back home, bearing stories and possibilities''. Tourism could also be placed in this category. It is a kind of temporary migration with an easy opportunity to opt out of the foreign culture. With the huge increase of actual migration, vicarious migration, and mass mediation, understanding acculturation processes is more important than ever. Berry et al. (1989) and Berry and Sam (1997) proposed a comprehensive model of acculturation responses. They distinguished two dimensions:

whether the person wants to maintain their own cultural identity (cultural maintenance) and whether the person wants to become involved with the national culture in the host country (contact and participation). Dependent on the answer to both questions, people will exhibit any of four acculturation strategies: integration (both maintenance and participation), assimilation (participation while rejecting one's own original cultural background), separation (maintenance while rejecting the national culture of the host country), and marginalization (rejection of both cultures). Alden et al. (1999b) recently used Berry et al.'s model to understand people's acculturation response to the emerging global culture. They found that people who showed a greater inclination to acculturate to the global culture (either through integration or assimilation) were better educated, had been more exposed to mass-mediated events, were more exposed to vicarious mass-migration, and had more admiration for other countries. Antecedents of national culture The antecedents of a national culture have attracted little systematic attention. Why is one country high on individualism and another country high on uncertainty avoidance? Which socioeconomic, geographic, historical, and other factors are underlying causes of the differences between countries in national culture? Different authors have examined this issue but the most comprehensive investigation was carried out by Hofstede (1980). He conducted correlation analyses and provided numerous speculations about the origins of cross-national differences. Hofstede correlated his four dimensions with six economic, geographic and demographic variables, among others. GNP/capita and latitude (a proxy for climate) showed the strongest relations. GNP/capita was negatively correlated with power distance (r = 0.65, p < 0.001) and uncertainty avoidance (r = 0.30, p < 0.05), and positively correlated with individualism (r = 0.82, p < 0.001). Thus, the richer a country, the more individualistic the country is and the lower it rates on power distance and uncertainty avoidance. Wealth makes people independent. Latitude was negatively correlated with power distance (r = 0.65, p < 0.001) and masculinity (r = 0.31, p < 0.05), and positively correlated with individualism (r = 0.75, p < 0.001). Hofstede argued that colder climates promote cultural individualism and lower power distance because survival in such climes is hypothesized to require greater personal initiative. The rationale for the correlation with masculinity is less clear. Recently, Parker and Tavassoli (1997, 2000) developed a detailed argument concerning the effect of climate on national culture, and on individualism in particular through the limiting and motivating influence of climate on the type of social processes (amount of time spent outdoors, which in colder climes is much less) and economic activities. Another antecedent is religion. Hofstede (1980) found that the ratio of Catholics (versus Protestants) in a country is negatively related to individualism (r = 0.63, p < 0.001), and positively related to power distance

The role of national culture

39

International Marketing Review 18,1 40

(r = 0.68, p < 0.001), uncertainty avoidance (r = 0.76, p < 0.001), and masculinity (r = 0.40, p < 0.05). The correlations with the first three dimensions are consistent with the hierarchical structure of the Roman Catholic Church, the certainty it offers in its teachings and rituals, and the relative de-emphasis of personal responsibility (compared to Protestant denominations). It is also consistent with McClelland (1961). The correlation with masculinity is less obvious and may be spurious. In what might be one of the most rigorous theory-driven studies on antecedents of national culture, Triandis et al. (1990) proposed a detailed set of hypotheses concerning the antecedents of national-cultural individualism. They hypothesize that affluence and urbanism have a positive effect on the degree of individualism, while the presence of larger families and the greater importance of agriculture have a negative effect. Steenkamp et al. (1999) tested these hypotheses for a sample of 11 EU countries, and found that they were largely supported. A country's rating on the individualism dimension correlated 0.54 (p < 0.05) with GNP/capita corrected for purchasing power, 0.66 (p < 0.05) with the degree of urbanization, 0.29 (p = 0.19) with the number of occupants per dwelling, and 0.76 (p < 0.01) with the proportion of the workforce working in agriculture. Schwartz and Bardi (1997) examined the influence of the political system on national culture. They found that the systematic differences between Western and Eastern Europe could be well explained by the influences of adaptation to Communism in Eastern Europe. Alternative explanations, such as differences in economic development, religion, and earlier history, were examined but proved to be less strong and consistent predictors. Although a number of valuable insights have been obtained, research on the antecedents of national culture suffers from at least two weaknesses. First, all explanations, while valuable in their own right, are piecemeal. There is no rigorous, comprehensive theory explaining cultural variation across nations. Parker and Tavassoli's (1997, 2000) work on physioeconomics is an important step in this direction and deserves further attention. However, it cannot easily explain large cultural differences between countries that are geographically close (e.g. Belgium and The Netherlands). Second, the causal relation between antecedents and culture is not always clear cut. Consider the high correlation between GNP/capita and individualism. It is unclear whether an individualistic culture stimulates wealth as neoclassical economists would argue or that wealthier societies become more individualistic, since the economic security provided by the group becomes less important as some sociologists would maintain. This argument may be less pertinent for religion or climate. However, one may wonder why Protestantism caught on in particular parts of Europe in the first place. It is not unlikely that those parts were more individualistic. Reverse causation for climate is not possible, but one cannot rule out the possibility that part of the effect of climate is due to its effect on the socio-economic environment. As such, the effect of climate

may be indirect, which still calls for identification and examination of the mediating socio-economic variables. Conclusions In the last 20 years, much important work on national culture has been conducted in marketing and other social science disciplines. Much of the progress in our field is due to fundamental research delineating basic dimensions of national culture. This work has been criticized for being too simplistic. Culture would be too complex a phenomenon to be captured in a few dimensions. Ii is agreed that no limited set of dimensions can exhaustively describe the culture of societies in their full richness and complexity. However, one must concur with Schwartz and Ros (1995, p. 118) that ``resigning ourselves to unique, thick descriptions for each group would preclude the comparative approach to which many cross-culturalists are committed. The ultimate goal is to find a limited set of dimensions that captures the most prominent differences, integrates multiple cultural features, and relates meaningfully to socio-historical variables''. There are numerous issues that could be addressed in future research. One issue is further work to develop a comprehensive set of cultural dimensions. In this contribution, I analyzed the communalities between the Hofstede and Schwartz schemes, but more work is necessary. In this and other analyses, industrialized countries dominated. It is still less clear whether these dimensions adequately describe the national culture of less developed countries. Certain facets also appear to be missing, such as the time perspective of a culture. Another issue is the temporal stability of culture. What is the rate of cultural change and what are its drivers? A sustained longitudinal study could answer those questions and address the question of causality. In previous research, the sampling of particular national cultures has been often a matter of convenience. When the goal of the study is to establish generalizability of one's findings across cultural contexts, this might be an acceptable procedure. However, when cultural factors are part of the theoretical framework, and (one of) the goal(s) of the study is to test the effects of culture, it is important that the countries sampled differ sufficiently on the focal dimension(s). Sivakumar and Nakata (2001) have developed a method based on Hofstede's framework to design more optimal (in the sense of large variation on the dimensions of interest) multi-country samples. Future research should also develop and test multi-layered theories and models, specifying meta-, national-, and micro-cultural, and individual-level effects and their interrelations (Steenkamp et al., 1999). Such models would lead to a better understanding of the role of culture in attitudes and behavior. Another research direction is to better understand acculturation processes. How do people react to other cultures and does this differ dependent on the acculturation mode (e.g. vicarious versus actual migration)? These and other issues will keep international marketing researchers busy far into the twentyfirst century.

The role of national culture

41

International Marketing Review 18,1 42

Notes 1. S (H) stands for a dimension from the Schwartz (Hofstede) framework. 2. The relatively low score of the USA compared to most Western European countries on the autonomy and egalitarianism dimensions may be somewhat surprising. For the autonomy dimension, this is largely due to the fact that Western European countries typically rated higher on intellectual autonomy and lower on conservatism than the USA. The difference on the egalitarianism dimension is due to the high score of Western European countries and the low score of the USA on harmony, while Western European countries typically also rated higher on egalitarianism. It is outside the scope of this paper to speculate about the socio-historical developments and variables that might explain these differences. See Schwartz and Ros (1995) for some ideas. References Alden, D.L., Hoyer, W.D. and Lee, C. (1993), ``Identifying global and culture-specific dimensions of humor in advertising: a multinational analysis'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, April, pp. 64-75. Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999a), ``Brand positioning through advertising in Asia, North America, and Europe: the role of global consumer culture'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, January, pp. 75-87. Alden, D.L., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Batra, R. (1999b), ``Global brand positioning and advertising effectiveness: does acculturation to global consumer culture make a difference?'', paper presented at the AMA Summer Educators Conference, San Francisco, CA, 7-10 August. Appadurai, A. (1990), ``Disjuncture and difference in the global cultural economy'', in Featherstone, M. (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 295-310. Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MI. Baumgartner, H. and Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (1999), Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National Investigation, working paper, Pennsylvania State University, Philadelphia, PA. Berry, J.W. and Sam, D.L. (1997), ``Acculturation and adaptation'', in Berry, J.W., Segall, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications, 2nd ed., Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 291-326. Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M. and Bujaki, M. (1989), ``Acculturation attitudes in plural societies'', Applied Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 185-206. Dawar, N. and Parker, Ph.M. (1994), ``Marketing universals: consumers' use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, April, pp. 81-95. Fernandez, D.R., Carlson, D.S., Stepina, L.P. and Nicholson, J.D. (1997), ``Hofstede's country classification 25 years later'', Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 137 No. 1, pp. 43-54. Gordon, M.M. (1964), Assimilation in American Life, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Hannerz, U. (1990), ``Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture'', in Featherstone, M. (Ed.), Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 237-51. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, London. Hoppe, M.H. (1990), ``A comparative study of country elites: international differences in work related values and learning and their implications for international management training

and development'', doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, CA. Iyengar, S.S. and Lepper, M.R. (1999), ``Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 349-66. Jun, S., Ball, A.D. and Gentry, J.W. (1993), ``Modes of consumer acculturation'', in McAlister, L. and Rothschild, M.L. (Eds), Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 20, Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, pp. 76-82. Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G.M. and Harris, J. (1993), ``Consumer tipping: a cross-country study'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, December, pp. 478-88. McClelland, D.C. (1961), The Achieving Society, Free Press, New York, NY. Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), ``Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation'', Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53. Nakata, C. and Sivakumar, K. (1996), ``National culture and new product development: An integrative review'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, January, pp. 61-72. Parker, Ph.M. and Tavassoli, N.T. (1997), Physioeconomic Theories of Culture and Consumption, working paper, INSEAD. Parker, Ph.M. and Tarassoli, N.T. (2000), ``Homeostasis and consumer behavior across countries'', International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-53. Ricks, D.A. (1993), Blunders in International Business, Blackwell, Cambridge. Ronen, S. and Shenkar, O. (1985), ``Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: a review and synthesis'', Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 435-54. Roth, M.S. (1995), ``The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32, May, pp. 163-75. Schwartz, S.H. (1994), ``Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of value'', in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method and Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 85-119. Schwartz, S.H. (1997), ``Values and culture'', in Munro, D., Carr, S. and Schumaker, J. (Eds), Motivation and Culture, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 69-84. Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (1997), ``Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in eastern Europe'', Political Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 385-410. Schwartz, S.H. and Ros, M. (1995), ``Values in the West: a theoretical and empirical challenge to the individualism-collectivism cultural dimension'', World Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 91-122. Sivakumar, K. and Nakata, C. (2001), ``The stampede toward Hofstede's framework: avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural business studies'', Journal of International Business Studies, forthcoming. Smith, P.B. and Bond, M.H. (1993), Social Psychology across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives, Allyn & Bacon, Needham, MA. Smith, P.B. and Schwartz, S.H. (1997), ``Values,'' in Berry, J.W., Segall, M.H. and Kagitcibasi, C. (Eds), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications, 2nd ed., Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA, pp. 77-118. Smith, P.B., Dugan, S. and Trompenaars, F. (1996), ``National culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 countries'', Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, Vol. 27, March, pp. 231-64. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. (1999), ``A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, April, pp. 55-69.

The role of national culture

43

International Marketing Review 18,1 44

ter Hofstede, F., Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. and Wedel, M. (1999), ``International market segmentation based on consumer-product relations'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36, February, pp. 1-17. Triandis, H.C., McCusker, Ch. and Hui, C.H. (1990), ``Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism'', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 1006-20. Tse, D.K., Lee, K-H., Vertinsky, I. and Wehrung, D.A. (1988), ``Does culture matter? A crosscultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness and risk adjustment in international marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, October, pp. 81-95. Wallendorf, M. and Reilly, M.D. (1983), ``Ethnic migration, assimilation, and consumption'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, December, pp. 292-302. Wedel, M., ter Hofstede, F. and Steenkamp, J-B.E.M. (1998), ``Mixture model analysis of complex samples'', Journal of Classification, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 225-44.