Individual Cultural Values and Consumer Animosity: Chinese Consumers’ Attitude Toward American Products

Abstract

The importance and interest in individual cultural values have been increased considerably in recent years. Cultural values have been examined as the antecedent to many consumer behaviors and attitudes. The individual cultural values of consumers are shaping attitude and behavior and how that influence consumer animosity is less studied in the literature. To address the research gap, the current study proposes a theoretically and empirically tested framework based on value–attitude–behavior (VAB) model. This study aims to investigate the role of individual cultural values on consumer animosity in the context of 2018 China–United States (U.S.) trade war. The study also examines the relationship between consumer animosity and reluctance to buy (RTB) U.S. products by Chinese consumers. The hypothesized model is tested in China in the context of the ongoing political conflict initiated by United States over Donald Trump’s administration’s tariffs policy targeting China. A convenience sample of Chinese consumers (n = 303) yielded a total of the questionnaire. The results point to a positive and significant relationship between collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and consumer animosity and a negative relationship between power distance and consumer animosity. Moreover, result shows an insignificant association between long-term orientation and consumer animosity. Finally, the result of this study shows a positive relationship between consumer animosity and RTB U.S. products. The theoretical and practical implications of the proposed study are also discussed.

Keywords

consumer animosity individual cultural values reluctance to buy 2018 China–U.S. trade war

Introduction

To capitalize on the challenges and opportunities that are emerging for marketers as globalization expands, managers must develop sustainable strategies to respond and adapt to market changes. Klein, Ettenson, and Morris (1998) initiated the study of consumer animosity, developing a model for animosity and defining animosity as “antipathy related to previous or ongoing political, military, economic, or diplomatic events” (p. 90). Since the publication of that seminal study, animosity has been investigated in the context of product evaluation, reluctance to buy (RTB), consumer ethnocentrism, and product choice (Ettenson & Gabrielle Klein, 2005; Kalliny & LeMaster, 2005; Klein, 2002; Klein et al., 1998). However, there have been few studies that have determined predictors to consumer animosity. Among these, for instance, Bahaee and Pisani (2009) mentioned the role of sociodemographic antecedents in predicting consumer animosity. Shoham, Davidow, Klein, and Ruvio (2006) proposed that sociophycological antecedents are key factors for the prediction of consumer animosity. Similarly, economic factors play an important role in predicting consumer animosity (Barrera, Caples, & Tein, 2001; Huang, Phau, & Lin, 2010; Klein & Ettensoe, 1999).

As a result of the globalization of markets and the diversification of consumer segments, interest in the influence of culture on consumer attitude and behavior has considerably increased (Conner, Reardon, Miller, Salciuviene, & Auruskeviciene, 2017). Culture has been investigated in depth in the marketing and business literature (Samuel Craig & Douglas, 2006; Warner-Søderholm, 2012). Awareness of the importance of individual cultural values has been growing in recent years, and cultural values are being examined as antecedents to consumer behaviors and attitudes (Conner et al., 2017; Gürhan-Canli & Maheswaran, 2000; Sharma, 2011; Yoo & Donthu, 2005; Yoo & Shin, 2017; Yoon, 2009). Consumers’ individual cultural values shape their attitudes and behaviors, but how they influence consumer animosity is less studied (Han, 2017).

The importance of cultural values as antecedents indicates the need to explore their role in predicting consumer animosity. This study focuses on the role of individual Chinese consumers’ cultural values as antecedents to their consumer animosity toward the United States, in relation to the recent trade war between the two countries.

This article proposes and tests a theoretical model to expand our understanding of consumer animosity and its antecedents. In addition, it examines consumer animosity among Chinese consumers and their attitudes toward American products. We thus contribute to the existing consumer animosity literature in the following ways: the understanding of the effect of individual cultural values in creating consumer attitudes and behaviors in relation to an animosity-evoking country is developed. Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) five cultural dimensions, namely collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and long-term orientation, are used to describe Chinese consumers’ cultural values at an individual level. This study contributes to the literature on consumer animosity by incorporating its cultural antecedents. The animosity construct of Chinese consumers toward the United States is tested in the context of the hostility between the two nations, related to the 2018 China–U.S. trade war. This study provides insight that can be used by managers responsible for international marketing; they can examine ways that the negative impacts of such anger could be countered. Global marketers can adapt to accommodate consumer animosity, depending on the cultural values of those individuals who identify with a certain country. Managers can use these insights to reduce RTB products from the country that is the target of animosity by focusing on those individuals who have favorable individual cultural values.

Context of Chinese Consumers’ Animosity Toward the United States

The contemporary relationship of the United States with China has developed into an interesting topic. This relationship has been tense, with a few open conflicts, most strikingly in the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and their positions remained in conflict, for example, concerning territorial questions regarded islands in the South China Sea. The U.S. Council on Foreign Relations made the following assessment. ‘Since 1949, U.S.–China relations have evolved from tense standoffs to a complex mix of intensifying diplomacy, growing international rivalry, and increasingly intertwined economies.’¹ The bilateral relationship between China and the United States is the world’s most important and vital. On March 22, 2018, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump initiated a trade war against China by imposing tariffs on at a total of US$50 billion worth of Chinese imports.² China retaliated in early April by imposing tariffs on U.S. imports, prompting concerns of a trade war between the world’s two largest national economies.³ The United States imposed more tariffs on Chinese imports at various points in 2018, and each time, China retaliated with tariffs on equal values of U.S. imports.⁴ China accused the United States of trade bullying.⁵ The trade war between the two countries is still ongoing, and it has had implications for Chinese consumers: the prices of imported products from the United States have significantly escalated. Li, He, and Lin (2018) concluded that “China will lose more than the US in comparing the effects under mutual trade war.” Previous studies have indicated that past and current political disagreements between countries, including trade wars, likely prompt consumer animosity (Huang et al., 2010; Maher & Mady, 2010).

Individual Cultural Values

In this article, we investigate individual cultural values in relation to the consumer animosity of Chinese consumers. Cultural values are shared values and norms that individuals partake in, along with the personal beliefs that they develop based on their unique individual experiences (Sharma, 2010). Yoo and Donthu (2005, p. 10) define personal cultural orientation, which they use interchangeably with personal cultural values, and we term here individual cultural values, as “an individual’s values that can be found across countries or cultures . . . it is a result of personal learning through interactions with social environments such as family, workplace, community, host country, and media.” The literature suggests that individual cultural values are not inherited but learned from the environment, and cultural values continue to change when an individual is exposed to a new setting (Yoo & Donthu, 2005). Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) delineation of the cultural dimensions of national culture is widely used to assess national culture in country samples. Hofstede (1980) collected his data by randomly surveying 70,000 IBM employees in 67 countries. The concept of national culture has proven useful in the study of countries and nationalities. However, it has been noted that not all individuals in one country display the typical cultural values (Bond, 2002; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). Business researchers and managers may deal with individual consumers, so it is more appropriate to use a reflection of culture at the individual level (Kamakura & Mazzon, 1991; Kamakura & Novak, 1992; Yoo, Donthu, & Lenartowicz, 2011). We have used Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) five cultural dimensions to describe the cultural values held at the individual level. This article describes individuals’ cultural values using Hofstede’s five dimensions of national culture. In this way, it becomes possible to describe a person as displaying lower power distance, high collectivism, weak uncertainty avoidance, high masculinity, and short-term orientation.

Consumer Animosity

Klein et al. (1998, p. 90) pioneered the study of consumer animosity, defining it as “antipathy related to previous or ongoing political, military, economic, or diplomatic events.” Similarly, Averill (2012) stated that animosity is an extreme feeling of dislike or anger in relation to past or ongoing disputes between nations or people, which can take military, political, or economic dimensions in an international setting. Huang et al. (2010) defined consumer animosity as sensitivity to perceived threat, and Abraham and Reitman (2018, p. 412) defined it as a “hostile attitude aimed at national out-groups.” A number of studies have been performed on consumer animosity, of which some have replicated Klein et al. (1998), and others have extended the model by investigating its predictors, intervening variables, contextual variables, and outcome (Abraham & Reitman, 2018; Huang et al., 2010; Klein & Ettensoe, 1999; Maher & Mady, 2010; Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007; Shoham et al., 2006; Wang, He, & Li, 2013). This study contributes to the cultural antecedents of consumer animosity.

Value–Attitude–Behavior (VAB) Model

The VAB model, used in marketing studies, states that values (V) affect the attitudes (A) of consumers, which in turn drive their behavioral responses (B) (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983). That is, there is a flow of personal values to attitudes to behavioral responses. This model is suitable for this article. First, this model has been used widely in previous studies of consumer behavior to create a theoretical framework (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Lotz, Shim, & Gehrt, 2003; Teck Weng & Cyril de Run, 2013). Second, because individual cultural values are so important in the consumer behavioral response, the VAB model provides a parsimonious, organized way to examine the effects of values on attitudes and behaviors. Jung et al. (2002) define consumer animosity as an attitude toward a country. We use the VAB model to investigate the effects of the five dimensions of cultural values determined by Hofstede (2001), operationalized at the individual level (Yoo et al., 2011), on attitudes of consumer animosity and the effect of animosity on RTB products (behavioral response) from an offending country. In Figure 1, the research model for the study is exhibited.

Figure 1.

Research model based on value–attitude–behavior (VAB) Model.

Collectivism and Consumer Animosity

In individualistic societies, “the ties between individuals are loose: everyone is expected to look after him/herself and his or her immediate family only,” and by contrast, individuals from collectivistic societies “from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 225). Similarly, collectivistic cultures emphasize group values and collective behavior, because the group to which a person belongs is considered more important than private life. Subsequently, Individuals with collectivistic behavior are more willing to maintain integrity and comply with in-group authorities (Triandis, 1989). Likewise, individuals with collectivistic values exhibit a strong propensity to keep to group norms (Gupta & Panda, 2003). The literature on culture suggests that individualistic cultures and consumers are less prone to out-group bias (Hui, 1988; Triandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990). According to Abraham and Reitman (2018), “animosity is a hostile attitude aimed at national out-groups.” Therefore, consumers from collectivist cultures may more easily develop a hostile attitude toward national out-groups. In addition, collectivist consumers may perceive their identity as merged with their national identity (Conner et al., 2017), and consumer animosity is anger toward a country in response to a threat to the national image (Huang et al., 2010). As they may perceive themselves as protecting their nation’s identity from outside threats, collectivist consumers can be expected to harbor more animosity. Similarly, Han (2017) suggests that Korean consumers with collectivist values exhibit a high level of consumer animosity toward Japan. Thus, it is likely that Chinese consumers, who have high collectivist values, have developed a high degree of animosity toward the United States in the Context of trade war. Therefore, the literature prompts us to adopt the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Chinese consumers with high collectivism values harbor a high degree of consumer animosity toward the United States.

Masculinity and Consumer Animosity

Masculinity as a national cultural value is defined as “the extent to which the dominant values in society are ‘masculine,’ that is, assertiveness, aggressiveness, competitiveness, the acquisition of money and things, and not caring for others, the quality of life, or people” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 297). Similarly, Leung, Bond, Carment, Krishnan, and Liebrand (1990) find that consumers with high masculinity are confrontational, preferring threats, blame, and accusation to emerge victorious from a dispute. Likewise, masculine individuals are not ready for conversation as between equals, whereas consumers who score high on the femininity index tend to be more harmonious, like mediating and negotiating, and avoid violent procedures. Leung (1987) signifies an expression of insistence, self-confidence, hostility, aggression, and desire (Schwartz & Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009).

Consumer animosity can be understood as anger and hostility toward a target country that has its roots in past or current political disagreement between two countries (Huang et al., 2010; Maher & Mady, 2010). As a result of the ongoing political discord between China and the United States, masculine Chinese consumers are likely to harbor more hostility toward China’s opponent. This study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Chinese consumers with high masculinity values harbor a high degree of consumer animosity toward the United States.

Uncertainty Avoidance and Consumer Animosity

Uncertainty avoidance dimension is defined as ‘the extent to which an individual ‘feels threatened by uncertain or unknown situations” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 161). Similarly, individuals with higher uncertainty avoidance are active, emotional, and security seekers; they also tend to accept uncertainty without much discomfort and show greater tolerance for opinions and behaviors different from their own, whereas individuals with lower uncertainty avoidance values are contemplative, less emotional, and risk takers; and they have a greater need to control the environment, events, and situations in their personal lives (Sharma, 2010; Yoo & Donthu, 2005). As a result of this, people with their origins in a culture of uncertainty avoidance are prone to in-group favoritism (Fischer & Derham, 2016). According to Wu and Srite (2015), individuals who express a higher level of uncertainty avoidance respond by becoming more oriented toward self-protection when they encounter with problems and challenges. Furthermore, consumers with high uncertainty avoidance depend on emotional and sentimental cues, such as individual attachment to their country (Conner et al., 2017). Therefore, it is likely that consumers with a strong value of uncertainty avoidance have a high degree of consumer animosity. Thus, the following hypothesis was adopted:

Hypothesis 3 (H3): Chinese consumers with strong uncertainty avoidance values harbor a high degree of consumer animosity toward the United States.

Power Distance and Consumer Animosity

Power distance is defined as pertaining “to general human inequality in areas such as prestige, wealth, power, social status, and the class system, people of large power distance assume that less powerful people should expect and accept that power is distributed unequally” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 98). In cultures with high power distance, the members of a society expect and accept that power is not distributed evenly (Hofstede, 2001). Similarly, individuals with high power distance are more likely to “accept a power hierarchy, tight control, vertical top-down communication, and even discrimination based on age, gender, hometown, family, social class, school, education level, or job positions” (Yoo & Donthu, 2005). According to Wu and Srite (2015), those with high power-distance values have “tolerance in accepting inequalities in power, they are less likely to feel the unfairness and be miserable about the situation.” According to Bochner and Hesketh (1994), individuals with high power-distance values are fearful of powerful people and reluctant to disagree with them. We predict that high power-distance consumers in an importing country are likely to be unwilling to disagree with the exporting country (the United States). It is likely that individuals with high power-distance values of the importing country will not believe that exporting country acted wrongly and should be criticized for its trade practices with the importing entity. This study assumes that consumers with high power-distance values are less likely to be responsive to considerations of inequality and so are less likely to harbor anger toward the United States. Therefore, it is likely that individuals with high power-distance values are likely to harbor less animosity toward the United States. Hence, this study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4): Chinese consumers with high power-distance values harbor a low degree of consumer animosity toward the United States.

Long-Term Orientation and Consumer Animosity

The long-term orientation is defined as “the fostering of virtues oriented toward future rewards, in particular, perseverance, and thrift” (Hofstede, 2001, p. 359). Alcántara-Pilar and Del Barrio-García (2015) found that individuals in cultures with a short-term orientation expect quick results, and those with a long-term orientation are comfortable with slower outcomes and exhibit greater diligence. The measure of the long-term or short-term cultural value is “the extent to which a society exhibits a pragmatic future-orientated perspective rather than a conventional historic or short-term point of view” (De Mooij, 2003). Therefore, it seems likely that consumers with a long-term orientation might not feel anger toward the United States. When they are exposed to animosity-evoking messages such as the chanting of a “boycott America” slogan, consumers with a short-term orientation will be convinced more easily to animosity than those individuals who have values of long-term orientation. Individuals with short-term orientation are likely to believe anger toward animosity-evoking country is ethical, right, and appropriate. It suggests that consumers with long-term orientations are less likely to harbor anger toward the United States. Therefore, this study outlines the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Chinese consumers with long-term orientation values harbor a low degree of consumer animosity toward the United States.

Consumer Animosity and RTB American Products

Klein et al. (1998) investigated Chinese consumer animosity, determining that it related positively to the RTB Japanese products. Even though many years have passed since the occurrence of Nanjing Massacre, some Chinese are still unwilling to purchase Japanese products. A large body of research has also found a positive relationship between consumer animosity and RTB products from the country against which the animosity is felt (Abraham & Reitman, 2018; Fernández-Ferrín, Bande-Vilela, Klein, & del Río-Araújo, 2015 ; Peng Cui, Wajda, & Hu, 2012; Podoshen, 2009; Rose, Rose, & Shoham, 2009; Wang et al., 2013). Prior studies have concluded that animosity affects consumers’ RTB products from an animosity-evoking country. Hence, Chinese consumer animosity toward the United States is positively related to an RTB U.S. products.

Hypothesis 6 (H6): Consumer animosity toward the United States is positively related to an RTB U.S. products.

Research Methodology

A survey was used to test the proposed research model. This survey forecasts certain behaviors and the link between constructs (Newsted, Huff, & Munro, 1998; Pitafi, Liu, & Cai, 2018). This study measured the effects of individual cultural values (collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, and long-term orientations) as antecedents to consumer animosity. This section explains the data collection procedure, the sample, and the measures employed.

Data Collection Procedure

The sampled population was consumers from China. We collected the data through an online questionnaire survey from July 2018 to August 2018. The respondents were university students in China. A pilot study was initially conducted with 23 students to determine the levels of animosity harbored toward the United States. For the purposes of data collection, the authors were assisted by university instructors, who shared the survey link among their students. Students were guaranteed the secrecy of their personal information. The total sample size was n = 303 (64% male, 65% 21- to 30-year olds, 60% completed 16 years of education). Demographic information is presented in Table 1. According to Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions, China’s scores on the cultural dimensions for collectivism, masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term orientation were 91, 66, 80, 40, and 118, respectively. Thus, China was found to be a high power-distance and highly collectivist society. Table 3 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for the constructs. As shown in Table 3, the mean score for power distance was 2.01, and the mean score for collectivism was 3.33. In this study, the score for power distance differed from the score for China reported by Hofstede. This indicates that cultural values of consumers are varying as a result of rapid economic development and globalization (Han, 2017).

Table 1.

Demographic Information of the Sample.

	N	%
Gender
Male	194	64.0
Female	109	36.0
Age (years)
21-30	198	65.3
31-40	96	31.7
41-50	9	3.0
Education
Bachelors/undergraduate	76	25.1
Masters/graduate	183	60.4
Doctoral degree	44	14.5

Measures

In total, this study included seven constructs: collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, power distance, long-term orientation, consumer animosity, and RTB. The three demographic variables measured were age, gender, and years of education. All scales used in this study were adopted from previous studies that have been well recognized in their particular area. All the measures (except long-term orientation) were scored on a 5-point Likert-type-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree. Many researchers have also suggested that a 5-point Likert-type scale is easier to understand than a 7-point scale (Cheng & Chen, 2015; Dawes, 2008; Pitafi, Kanwal, Ali, Khan, & Ameen, 2018). For the long-term orientations construct, respondents chose their agreement with each question on a 5-point Likert scale anchored at (1) not at all important and (5) extremely important. The details of measurement items are as follows.

Individual cultural values

The individual cultural values scale, CVSCALE, published by Yoo et al. (2011) and Yoo and Shin (2017), was used to measure individual cultural values. The CVSCALE was established to measure Hofstede’s (1980, 2001) five cultural dimensions at the individual level. Hofstede’s original scale measured cultural values at the country level, so when Hofstede’s scale is used to understand individuals, the ecological fallacy is committed. For this reason, the CVSCALE was developed to measure cultural values at the individual level. This scale confirms psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity, with cross-sample and cross-national generalizability (Yoo and Shin, 2017). CVSCALE is most useful in predicting consumer behavior (Yoo et al., 2011). We were concerned about the homogeneity of respondents’ background by collecting data from university students. We think the bias has reduced causing sample heterogeneity in terms of age, gender, educational experience, and cultural difference (Yoon, 2009). Also, given that in today’s world, general mobility of individuals within a country and worldwide communication channels, the members of a country may possess cultural inequivalency. The CVSCALE consists of 26 items in five dimensions. Two items used to measure the collectivism dimension, “Group success is more important than individual success,” and “Group loyalty should be encouraged even if individual goals suffer,” one item to measure the masculinity dimension, “Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition,” one item to measure uncertainty avoidance, “Instructions for operations are important,” one item to measure power distance, “People in higher positions should not delegate important tasks to people in lower positions,” and one item to measure long-term orientation, “Going on resolutely in spite of opposition (persistence),” had poor loadings and were dropped from the instrument used in the study. Counting the remaining items, for collectivism, we used four items; for masculinity, we used three items; for uncertainty avoidance, we used four questions items; for power distance, we used four questions items; and for long-term orientation, we used five questions items. Details for these items are given in Table 2.

Table 2.

Measure of Constructs.

S. no.	Construct	No. of items	Scale items	Source
1	Collectivism	4	1. Individuals should sacrifice self-interest for the group to which they belong. 2. Individuals should stick with the group even through difficulties 3. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. 4. Individuals should pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group.	Yoo, Donthu, and Lenartowicz (2011); Yoo and Shin (2017)
2	Masculinity	3	1. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women. 2. Solving difficult problems usually requires an active, forcible approach, which is typical of men. 3. There are some jobs a man can always do better than a woman.	Yoo et al., 2011; Yoo and Shin (2017)
3	Uncertainty avoidance	4	1. It is important to have instructions spelled out in detail so that I always know what I’m expected to do. 2. It is important to closely follow instructions and procedures. 3. Rules/regulations are important because they inform me of what is expected of me. 4. Standardized work procedures are helpful.	Yoo et al. (2011); Yoo and Shin (2017)
4	Power distance	4	1. People in higher positions should make most decisions without consulting people in lower positions. 2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions of people in lower positions too frequently. 3. People in higher positions should avoid social interaction with people in lower positions. 4. People in lower positions should not disagree with decisions made by people in higher positions.	Yoo et al. (2011); Yoo and Shin (2017)
5	Long-term orientation	5	1. Careful management of money (thrift). 2. Personal steadiness and stability. 3. Long-term planning. 4. Giving up today’s fun for success in the future. 5. Working hard for success in the future.	Yoo et al. (2011); Yoo and Shin (2017)
6	Consumer animosity	3	Considering the context of the ongoing political conflict initiated by the United States over the Donald Trump’s administration’s tariffs policy targeting China (2018 U.S.–China trade war). 1. I do not like the United States. 2. I feel angry toward Donald Trump’s tariffs policy targeting China. 3. The United States is taking advantage of China.	Klein (2002)
7	Reluctance to buy	3	1. I would feel guilty if I bought an American-made product. 2. Whenever possible, I avoid buying American products. 3. I do not like the idea of owning American-made products.	Huang, Phau, and Lin (2010)

Consumer animosity

The original animosity scale had nine items (Klein, 2002; Klein et al., 1998), with six first-order items related to war and economic animosity. The remaining three are second order and related to general animosity. In the pilot study, Chinese consumers gave contrasting opinions in relation to the first-order constructs of animosity. However, their opinions were consistent with regard to the second-order constructs of animosity. This study adapted the three-item scale published by Klein (2002) to measure consumer animosity. This study adapted this scale for use in China to measure animosity against the United States in the context of the ongoing political conflict initiated by the United States against China regarding tariff policy. Details of these items are given in Table 2.

RTB foreign products

We used a three-item scale developed by Huang et al. (2010) to measure RTB U.S. products. The items are given in Table 2.

Data Analysis

Structural equation modeling with AMOS (version 24.0) software was used to test the measurement model and the structural model. For this study, the parameters were estimated using the maximum likelihood method.

Measurement Model

Due to the nature of the data, we tested for common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). In the literature, various procedures are reported that ensure the common bias issue. First, Harman’s one-factor method was performed on all the items for all the constructs. As a result, 13 factors were created with eigenvalues >1.0 that accounted for 91.86% of the variance. The first factor was kept to only 28.70% of the difference or less than 50%. Second, a common latent factor procedure was utilized to examine the validity of the data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003; Podsakoff et al., 2012). These results confirm that this study was not influenced by common method bias. Table 3 also shows an inter-correlation among all the variables (r < 0.9), as proposed by Pavlou and El Sawy (2006). All these results taken together reconfirm that common method bias did not seriously affect the outcomes.

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Power distance	2.01	0.97	.87
2. Long-term orientation	3.97	0.97	−.032	.84
3. Uncertainty avoidance	3.98	1.02	−.29	.30	.92
4. Collectivism	3.33	0.91	−.05	.23	.07	.91
5. Masculinity	3.36	1.00	−.19	.35	.26	.12	.92
6. Consumer animosity	3.49	0.98	−.30	.23	.34	.19	.29	.95
7. Reluctant to buy	3.32	1.18	−.13	.09	.21	−.02	.25	.47	.95
8. Education	NA	NA	−.11	−.02	−.03	−.10	−.07	.03	.06	NA
9. Age	NA	NA	−.10	−.04	−.07	−.11	−.07	.07	−.06	.40	NA
10. Gender	NA	NA	.11	−.12	.01	.06	−.04	.09	.02	−.01	.03	NA

Note. The mean is assessed based on average factor scores; standard deviation (SD) and correlations are from the second-order CFA output. The diagonal elements are the square root of the AVE. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; AVE = average variance extracted.

In this study, we also employed several techniques of data analysis to check our questionnaire for reliability and validity. For this purpose, validity, reliability, average shared variance, and maximum shared variance tests were conducted. Item loadings were higher than the standard value of 0.60 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). To verify convergent validity, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) were investigated. The findings shown in Table 4 indicate that the results for Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.90 to 0.96, above the standard value of 0.70 (Hinkin, 1998). The results for composite reliability ranged from 0.93 to 0.97 and were above the standard value of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). The AVE values ranged from 0.71 to 0.92, greater than the 0.50 standard value (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988) and greater than the maximum shared variance.

Table 4.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Construct	No. of items	Item	Loadings standardized	CA	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV
Collectivism	4	COL1	0.871	0.93	0.95	0.83	0.05	0.02
		COL2	0.891
		COL3	0.895
		COL4	0.857
Masculinity	3	MAS1	0.908	0.91	0.94	0.85	0.13	0.07
		MAS2	0.845
		MAS3	0.906
Uncertainty avoidance	4	UA1	0.936	0.94	0.96	0.85	0.12	0.07
		UA2	0.85
		UA3	0.925
		UA4	0.858
Power distance	4	PD1	0.877	0.9	0.93	0.77	0.11	0.06
		PD2	0.855
		PD3	0.746
		PD4	0.871
Long-term orientation	5	LTO1	0.805	0.9	0.93	0.71	0.13	0.07
		LTO2	0.85
		LTO3	0.789
		LTO4	0.774
		LTO5	0.81
Consumer animosity	3	GA1	0.949	0.96	0.97	0.91	0.23	0.1
		GA2	0.943
		GA3	0.937
Reluctance to buy	3	RTB1	0.949
		RTB2	0.939
		RTB3	0.948	0.96	0.97	0.92	0.23	0.06

Note. All factor loadings are significant at p < .001. Loading = standardized loading; CA = Cronbach’s alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted, MSV = maximum shared variance; ASV = average shared variance; discriminant validity: AVE > MSV.

Furthermore, all values for the AVE were less than the maximum shared variance. This indicates that the measurement model had a suitable convergent validity. Furthermore, Table 3 shows that the square roots of the AVEs for all variables were greater than the correlations among constructs, which validated the discriminant validity of the research model. These findings suggested a good discriminant validity for the data set. Thus, the measurement model possessed acceptable convergent and discriminant validity and reliability.

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted by the software AMOS (24). The measurement model included seven latent factors. The factor loadings for all items among the latent variables were above 0.7, 0.74 to 0.94, and they were reliable (p < .001). Table 3 displays the results of the factor loadings. All the loadings were greater than the threshold level of 0.4. (J. F. Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2010). All other item loadings were in the range 0.74 to 0.94. Table 3 indicates that all items were loaded on their constructs.

The fit of the full measurement model was analyzed to validate the relationship among all variables and goodness-of-fit measures, as suggested by Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (1998; Hair et al., 2010 ). The results confirmed that measurement model fit indices are in the given range, χ²/df = 1.605, root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = 0.045, adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) = 0.872, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.976, and normed fit index (NFI) = 0.938. Thus, the full measurement model fit revealed that this model is satisfactory fit to the data.

Structural Model

Structural equation modeling was carried out to examine the effects of individual cultural values on consumer animosity toward the United States and the effects of Chinese consumer animosity on RTB U.S. products. The structural model was analyzed by AMOS software. The results of structural model are shown in Figure 2. The results are within the accepted values, and the overall fit indices for the structural model are acceptable, χ²/df = 1.624, RMSEA = 0.045, NFI = 0.937, CFI = 0.975, incremental fit index (IFI) = 0.975, and Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.971. Thus, this model had a satisfactory fit to the data. We proceeded to calculate the coefficient paths. Our findings indicated that collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance all had significant effects on consumer animosity (β = 0.153, p < .01; β = .192, p < .01; β = .211, p < .001, and β = −0.214, p < .001, respectively), so H1, H2, H3, and H4 were supported. However, long-term orientation shows a nonsignificant relationship with consumer animosity (β = −0.008, p > .05), so H5 was not supported. Last, consumer animosity exhibited a positive relationship with RTB U.S. products (β = .498, p < .001), so H6 was supported. The results of all the analyses are given in Table 5.

Figure 2.

Results of structural model.

Table 5.

Results of Structural Equation Modeling.

Hypothesis	Standard coefficient	t value	p value	Result
H1a: Collectivism → consumer animosity	0.153	2.705	.007	Supported
H2a: Masculinity → consumer animosity	0.192	3.153	.002	Supported
H3a: Uncertainty avoidance → consumer animosity	0.211	3.529	.0001	Supported
H4a: Power distance → consumer animosity	−0.214	−3.511	.0001	Supported
H5a: long-term orientation → consumer animosity	−0.008	−0.119	.905	Unsupported
H6a: War animosity → reluctance to buy American products	0.498	9.216	.0001	Supported

Note. Goodness-of-fit statistics: chi-square/df = 1.624 at p < .01, RMSEA = 0.045, CFI = 0.975, IFI = 0.975, TLI = 0.971. RMSEA = root mean square error approximation; CFI = comparative fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index.

Discussions

Key Findings

This study investigated the effects of individual cultural values on consumer animosity and the relationship between consumer animosity and RTB U.S. products among Chinese consumers. Empirical work has already established some antecedents of consumer animosity (Bahaee & Pisani, 2009; Barrera et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2010; Klein & Ettensoe, 1999; Shoham et al., 2006). This study examined individual cultural values as antecedents to consumer animosity and the impact of consumer animosity among Chinese consumers toward the products of the United States. In addition to consumer collectivism, our results suggest that values of masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance in an individual consumer predicts that individual’s consumer animosity in the context of the 2018 trade war between China and the United States. This study fills a gap in the literature in its illustration of the role of individual cultural values as antecedents to consumer animosity. This study brought practical insights into consumer animosity literature, in relation to individual cultural values as antecedents. Collectivism, masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance had a significant relationship with consumer animosity, in accordance with our arguments. Chinese consumers who reported values of collectivist, masculine, and uncertainty avoidance expressed a high degree of animosity toward the United States. Likewise, those with high values of power distance harbored a low degree of animosity toward the United States. Ting-Toomey (1982) , in his study “Theory of conflict and culture,” stated that high cultural context individuals (such as the Chinese) are more likely to perceive conflict as expressive, marked by hostile feelings. Prior research suggests that societies with high values of collectivism and uncertainty avoidance are more likely to hold animosity toward a target entity due to their greater susceptibility to normative influences and perceived threats from the target entity, respectively (Huang et al., 2010). Similarly, Han (2017) found that collectivist consumers have a high degree of consumer animosity. However, one hypothesis was not supported by this study’s results. Specifically, it had previously been found that consumers with values of a long-term orientation are inclined toward dominant societies and international products; likewise, they are interested in developing a long-term relationship with them (De Mooij, 2003). In addition, consumer animosity has a positive relationship with RTB U.S. products, as was expected in our arguments. This finding is consistent with past literature (Abraham & Reitman, 2018; Klein et al., 1998; Shimp, Dunn, & Klein, 2004).

Theoretical Implications

Theoretically, the results of this study contribute to the consumer animosity literature in numerous ways. First, this was the first study to investigate the relationships among all five Hofstede cultural dimensions at the individual level to consumer animosity. Consistent with previous research, we found that individual cultural values can predict consumer behavior (Yoo & Donthu, 2005; Yoo & Shin, 2017).

Second, while past studies have emphasized sociodemographic (Bahaee & Pisani, 2009), sociophycological (Shoham et al., 2006), and economic (Barrera et al., 2001; Huang et al., 2010; Klein & Ettensoe, 1999) antecedents of consumer animosity, this study contributes to cultural antecedents.

Third, the results of this article extended the use of VAB theory (Homer & Kahle, 1988; Kahle, 1983) in the consumer animosity literature by investigating the role of individual cultural values on consumer animosity and consider the impact of consumer animosity on RTB U.S. products among Chinese consumers.

Fourth, in addition to consumer collectivism/individualism (Han, 2017), our findings provide evidence that consumers’ values of masculinity, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance predict consumer animosity in the context of a trade war between China and the United States.

Fifth, the relationship between long-term orientation and consumer animosity was found to be nonsignificant. A possible justification for this unexpected result may be found in the specific characteristics of our participants, who were generally young, male, educated Chinese consumers. As shown in Table 1, almost 64% of respondents were males, 65% of respondents were of 21 to 30 year, and 60% of respondents had a master’s degree. This type of Chinese consumer may be less motivated by values of either short-term or long-term orientation.

Finally, consistent with previous research on consumer animosity and RTB products from the country that is the object of the animosity (Abraham & Reitman, 2018; Fernández-Ferrín et al., 2015; Peng Cui et al., 2012; Podoshen, 2009; Rose et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2013), the relationship between consumer animosity and RTB U.S. products appeared to be significant. The consumer animosity of Chinese consumers toward the United States increased the RTB U.S. products.

Practical Implications

This study suggested that international marketers must consider the role of consumer animosity in the RTB products from an offending country, not only in reference to consumers with collectivistic or individualistic values (Han, 2017) but also regarding consumers with values of the masculine, uncertainty avoidance, and power distance orientations.

In addition, firms should not target consumers who hold animosity toward the sourcing country of the product. They should not concentrate their marketing and promotion campaigns on consumers with values of high collectivism, high masculine, high uncertainty avoidance, and low power-distance orientations rather than the reverse. Long-term orientation consumers do not appear to have a significant relationship with consumer animosity.

Furthermore, “globalness” of buyers is recognized; this article confirms past findings on differing consumer behavior and it proposes that when consumer segmentation is performed, consideration should be taken for the differences among consumers in the international context (Conner et al., 2017). Marketing should therefore vary according to the particular differences in cultural values among consumers in the country where sales are hoped to be made.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Some limitations that the study suffers under should be discussed, as well as indications for possible directions of future research.

First, the findings of this research are generalized from a sample of participants who were largely young, educated Chinese, so the findings should be generalized to young and educated consumers, not to the entire population of Chinese consumers. This suggests that future study could more diversified occupational contexts, beyond student populations.

Second, this study only examined five Hofstede cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2001) measured at individual level, so adding other dimensions (for instance, GLOBE study’s dimension) measured at individual level would be a valuable service that future research could contribute.

Third, this study was limited to only one kind of consumer animosity. Future work might explore the effects of individual cultural values on other kinds of animosity (Riefler & Diamantopoulos, 2007).

Fourth, in this study, we investigated the effects of consumer animosity on RTB in a very general product category, namely, U.S. products. Conducting nearly the same study with specific product categories such as U.S. fast foods or U.S. apparel would be valuable. Future research should consider examining the generalizability of our findings by performing the same research on other countries and non-East Asian countries in particular.

Fifth, our respondents were Chinese consumers. A complementary future examination of U.S. respondents to test their animosity toward Chinese products in this trade war would be interesting. A comparative study between consumers in both countries could help contextualize the data and deepen our understanding.

Finally, the timeframe of this research study was a limitation. Prior studies have indicated that consumer animosity can be situational (Jung et al., 2002). The recent political discord over tariff policies might have provoked animosity among Chinese consumers.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The first author (K.L.) is grateful to University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) authorities for the scholarship award and financial support during Ph.D. research studies at the University of Science and Technology of China, China.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Kashmala Latif

Abdul Hameed Pitafi

Notes

Author Biographies

Kashmala Latif is a PhD candidate at Department of Business Administration, School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), China. She obtained her master Degree in Management from HSBC Business School, Peking University, China. Her research interest includes emotions and affect in consumer behavior, organizational behavior, and social media.

Abdul Hameed Pitafi is currently doing post doctorate in Hefei University of Technology, China. He obtained his Ph.D. degree specialization in Information System from the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), China. He completed his Bachelor of Engineering (Computer System) from Quaid-Awam University of Science and Technology, Nawabshah, Pakistan. He received his master of Science degree in Networks and Telecommunication from Mohammed Ali Jinnah University, Karachi, Pakistan. He has more than 15 years of teaching experience. His current focus of research work lies in the role of information technology and people and how the adoption of various technologies is in the workplace. He is also reviewer of different international journals. He has published over 20 publications in SSCI and peer-reviewed journals.

Muhammad Yousaf Malik is a PhD candidate at Institute of South-South Cooperation and Development (ISSCAD), National School of Development in Peking University, China. He obtained his master Degree in Economics and Finance from HSBC Business School, Peking University, China, while an undergraduate degree in Applied Accounting from Oxford Brookes University, UK. Yousaf is also a member of Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), UK. His research interest includes consumer economics, regional economics, development economics, and tourism economics.

Zara Latif is a master student at National College of Business Administration & Economics, Bahawalpur, Pakistan. She did her bachelors in Business Administration from Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Her research interest includes consumer behavior and organizational behavior.

References

Abraham

Reitman

(2018). Conspicuous consumption in the context of consumer animosity. International Marketing Review, 35, 412-428.

Alcántara-Pilar

J. M.

Del Barrio-García

(2015). Antecedents of attitudes toward the website: The moderating role of long-term orientation and individualism. Cross Cultural Management, 22, 379-404.

Averill

J. R.

(2012). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. Singapore: Springer Science & Business Media.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.

Bahaee

Pisani

M. J.

(2009). Iranian consumer animosity and US products: A witch’s brew or elixir? International Business Review, 18, 199-210.

Barrera

Caples

Tein

J.-Y.

(2001). The psychological sense of economic hardship: Measurement models, validity, and cross-ethnic equivalence for urban families. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 493-517.

Bochner

Hesketh

(1994). Power distance, individualism/collectivism, and job-related attitudes in a culturally diverse work group. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 233-257.

Bond

M. H.

(2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede’s ecological analysis—A 20-year odyssey: Comment on Oyserman et al.(2002). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 73-77.

Cheng

Y.-H.

Chen

S.-Y.

(2015). Perceived accessibility, mobility, and connectivity of public transportation systems. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 77, 386-403.

10.

Conner

S. L.

Reardon

Miller

Salciuviene

Auruskeviciene

(2017). Cultural antecedents to the normative, affective, and cognitive effects of domestic versus foreign purchase behavior. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 18, 100-115. doi:10.3846/16111699.2016.1220975

11.

Dawes

(2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61-104.

12.

De Mooij

. (2003). Convergence and divergence in consumer behaviour: Implications for global advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 183-202.

13.

Ettenson

Gabrielle Klein

(2005). The fallout from French nuclear testing in the South Pacific: A longitudinal study of consumer boycotts. International Marketing Review, 22, 199-224.

14.

Fernández-Ferrín

Bande-Vilela

Klein

J. G.

del Río-Araújo

M. L.

(2015). Consumer ethnocentrism and consumer animosity: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 10, 73-88.

15.

Fischer

Derham

(2016). Is in-group bias culture-dependent? A meta-analysis across 18 societies. SpringerPlus, 5, Article 70.

16.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

17.

Gupta

R. K.

Panda

(2003). Individualised familial self: The evolving self of qualified technocrats in India. Psychology and Developing Societies, 15, 1-29.

18.

Gürhan-Canli

Maheswaran

(2000). Cultural variations in country of origin effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 309-317.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Hair

J. F.

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Han

C. M.

(2017). Individualism, collectivism, and consumer animosity in emerging Asia: Evidence from Korea. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 34, 359-370.

22.

Hinkin

T. R.

(1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104-121.

23.

Hofstede

(1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in Work-related value. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

24.

Hofstede

(2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

Homer

P. M.

Kahle

L. R.

(1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 638-646.

26.

Huang

Y.-A.

Phau

Lin

(2010). Consumer animosity, economic hardship, and normative influence: How do they affect consumers’ purchase intention? European Journal of Marketing, 44, 909-937.

27.

Hui

C. H.

(1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 17-36.

28.

Jung

Ang

S. H.

Leong

S. M.

Tan

S. J.

Pornpitakpan

Kau

A. K.

(2002). A typology of animosity and its cross-national validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 525-539.

29.

Kahle

L. R.

(1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America. New York, NY: Praeger.

30.

Kalliny

LeMaster

(2005). Before you go, you should know: The impact of war, economic, cultural and religious animosity on entry modes. Marketing Management Journal, 15, 18-28.

31.

Kamakura

W. A.

Mazzon

J. A.

(1991). Value segmentation: A model for the measurement of values and value systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 208-218.

32.

Kamakura

W. A.

Novak

T. P.

(1992). Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 119-132.

33.

Klein

J. G.

(2002). Us versus them, or us versus everyone? Delineating consumer aversion to foreign goods. Journal of International Business Studies, 33, 345-363.

34.

Klein

J. G.

Ettensoe

(1999). Consumer animosity and consumer ethnocentrism: An analysis of unique antecedents. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 11(4), 5-24.

35.

Klein

J. G.

Ettenson

Morris

M. D.

(1998). The animosity model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the People’s Republic of China. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 89-100.

36.

Leung

(1987). Some determinants of reactions to procedural models for conflict resolution: A cross-national study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 898-908.

37.

Leung

Bond

M. H.

Carment

D. W.

Krishnan

Liebrand

W. B.

(1990). Effects of cultural femininity on preference for methods of conflict processing: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 373-388.

38.

Lin

(2018). Economic impacts of the possible China–US trade war. Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 54, 1557-1577. doi:10.1080/1540496X.2018.1446131

39.

Lotz

S. L.

Shim

Gehrt

K. C.

(2003). A study of Japanese consumers’ cognitive hierarchies in formal and informal gift-giving situations. Psychology & Marketing, 20, 59-85.

40.

Maher

A. A.

Mady

(2010). Animosity, subjective norms, and anticipated emotions during an international crisis. International Marketing Review, 27, 630-651.

41.

Newsted

P. R.

Huff

S. L.

Munro

M. C.

(1998). Survey instruments in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 22, 553-554.

42.

Nunnally

(1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

43.

Pavlou

P. A.

El Sawy

O. A.

(2006). From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Information Systems Research, 17, 198-227.

44.

Peng Cui

Wajda

T. A.

M. Y

. (2012). Consumer animosity and product choice: Might price make a difference? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 494-506.

45.

Pitafi

A. H.

Kanwal

Ali

Khan

A. N.

Ameen

M. W.

(2018). Moderating roles of IT competency and work cooperation on employee work performance in an ESM environment. Technology in Society, 55, 199-208.

46.

Pitafi

A. H.

Liu

Cai

(2018). Investigating the relationship between workplace conflict and employee agility: The role of enterprise social media. Telematics and Informatics, 35, 2157-2172.

47.

Podoshen

(2009). Distressing events and future purchase decisions: Jewish consumers and the Holocaust. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 263-276.

48.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

49.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539-569.

50.

Riefler

Diamantopoulos

(2007). Consumer animosity: A literature review and a reconsideration of its measurement. International Marketing Review, 24, 87-119.

51.

Rose

G. M.

Shoham

(2009). The impact of consumer animosity on attitudes towards foreign goods: A study of Jewish and Arab Israelis. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26, 330-339.

52.

Samuel Craig

Douglas

S. P

. (2006). Beyond national culture: Implications of cultural dynamics for consumer research. International Marketing Review, 23, 322-342.

53.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bilsky

(1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878-891.

54.

Schwartz

S. H.

Rubel-Lifschitz

(2009). Cross-national variation in the size of sex differences in values: Effects of gender equality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 171-185.

55.

Sharma

(2010). Measuring personal cultural orientations: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 787-806.

56.

Sharma

(2011). Demystifying cultural differences in country-of-origin effects: Exploring the moderating roles of product type, consumption context, and involvement. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23, 344-364.

57.

Shimp

T. A.

Dunn

T. H.

Klein

J. G.

(2004). Remnants of the US Civil War and modern consumer behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 75-91.

58.

Shoham

Davidow

Klein

J. G.

Ruvio

(2006). Animosity on the home front: The Intifada in Israel and its impact on consumer behavior. Journal of International Marketing, 14, 92-114.

59.

Teck Weng

Cyril de Run

. (2013). Consumers’ personal values and sales promotion preferences effect on behavioural intention and purchase satisfaction for consumer product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25, 70-101.

60.

Ting-Toomey

(1982). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED225201

61.

Triandis

H. C.

(1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520.

62.

Triandis

H. C.

McCusker

Hui

C. H.

(1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006-1020.

63.

Wang

(2013). Animosity and willingness to buy foreign products: Moderating factors in decision-making of Chinese consumers. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19, 32-52.

64.

Warner-Søderholm

(2012). Culture matters: Norwegian cultural identity within a Scandinavian context. SAGE Open, 2(4). doi:10.1177/2158244012471350

65.

Srite

(2015). Benign envy, social media, and culture. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Benign-Envy-%2C-Social-Media-%2C-and-Culture-Completed-Wu-Srite/a46d0a41ef1b28ec06a0a849c4c56bbe725b6964

66.

Yoo

Donthu

(2005). The effect of personal cultural orientation on consumer ethnocentrism: Evaluations and behaviors of US consumers toward Japanese products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 18, 7-44.

67.

Yoo

Donthu

Lenartowicz

(2011). Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 23, 193-210.

68.

Yoo

Shin

G.-C.

(2017). Invariant effect of individual cultural orientations: An application of CVSCALE. International Marketing Review, 34, 735-759.

69.

Yoon

(2009). The effects of national culture values on consumer acceptance of e-commerce: Online shoppers in China. Information & Management, 46, 294-301.