Cultural Value, Consumption Value, and Global Brand Image: A Cross-National Study

Hye-Jung Park
Korea Polytechnic University

Nancy J. Rabolt
San Francisco State University

In expanding their market to the global level with clear and consistent global brand images across nations, marketers are ever confronting the issue of how to deal with different cultural values. Cultural value is identified as an influential factor on brand image and is widely accepted as one of the crucial concepts in understanding consumer consumption value, which determines choices of consuming everyday products and services. Most firms endeavoring to establish and maintain consistent global brand images, however, adopt a standardized brand image strategy that usually does not consider individual target markets’ characteristics, including the concepts of cultural value and consumption value. This study developed a conceptual framework which incorporated cultural value not only as a direct antecedent of brand image, but also as an indirect antecedent of brand image through consumption value, and empirically tested it using the category of apparel. Following this framework, this study hypothesized the differences in brand image, cultural value, and consumption value between the U.S. and South Korea. Data were gathered through surveying university students residing in the San Francisco and Seoul metropolitan areas using a convenience sampling method. A total of 329 completed questionnaires were used in factor analysis, discriminant analysis, and structural equation
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 26(8): 714–735 (August 2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience ( © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20296 714

modeling. The results provide insights into standardized brand image strategies and suggest some implementable tools that might prove effective in both countries. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In the increasingly competitive marketplace, strong and consistent brand images contribute to nurturing a loyal customer base (Haynes, Lackman, & Guskey, 1999). A consistent and effective brand image also helps develop and reinforce brand equity in the long run (Biel, 1992; Keller, 1993; Roth, 1995a). Marketers’ failure to achieve brand image consistency may confuse consumers, which in turn will negatively affect long-term brand equity (Hsieh, 2002). Dunning (1981) proposed ownership advantage, internalization advantage, and location advantage as three conditions needed for a company to undertake its expansion to the globe. The more of these advantages a company has, the more likely it is that the company will effectively expand its global customer base. Considered as an equity, a strong and consistent global brand image might be one of the core asset-based ownership advantages of a global company that contributes to the company’s successful global market expansion. The dominance of transnational corporations manufacturing and marketing consumer goods around the world has fueled the proliferation of global consumer culture (Ger & Belk, 1996), and global integration has accelerated this homogenization of consumer behavior among developed countries and emerging markets (Dholakia & Talukdar, 2004). The need for strong empirical studies supporting global consumption homogenization was raised by Wind (1986) over two decades ago, and much research (Boddewyn, Soehl, & Picard, 1986; Gabel & Boller, 2000; Holt, Quelch, & Taylor, 2004; Quelch, 1999; Sheth, 1986; Zhou, Teng, & Poon, 2008) has discussed global consumer culture along with the standardized marketing strategies adopted by global brands. Other than the study by Dholakia and Talukdar (2004), which revealed the existence of consumption convergence in emerging markets, no meaningful empirical research has been conducted to date on global consumer homogenization. Assuming the homogeneity of consumers, without strong evidence, transnational corporations tend to employ standardized global brand image strategies rather than localized ones, and especially when running international advertising campaigns, they often ignore cultural values in local markets (Gregory & Munch, 1997). Pointing out the importance of cultural differences in the global market, however, many marketing studies (Huang & Tai, 2003; Khairullah & Khairullah, 2002; Lowe & Corkindale, 1998; McCarty & Hattwick, 1992; Roberts & Hart, 1997) have empirically shown differences in cultural values cross-culturally or cross-nationally. Regarding these differences, Wong and Ahuvia (1998) noted that consumers in Asian and Western societies may buy the same products but not always for the same reasons or purposes. Hence, establishing a consistent brand image globally while not adapting brand image strategies to cultural values and other characteristics of individual markets is not an easy task. Brand image needs to be tailored across countries reflecting cultural differences across markets, which are indicators of consumers’ different needs across nations (Roth, 1995b). Considering the importance of brand image management across the global market, Roth (1995a) concluded that brand image performance is influenced by cultural characteristics and that the degree of brand image customization is also influenced by cultural characteristics based on Hofstede’s
GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar 715

The results may reveal why brand images are perceived differently across nations and may suggest ways to incorporate differences in brand image strategies to establish a consistent global brand image across nations. In other words. the influence of culture on consumption and marketing has received increasing attention (Soares. & Tan. empirical studies on the establishment of global brand image are still limited.S. 1988). differ between the two countries. Taylor (2000) raised the need for more research identifying how culture influences consumer behavior and marketing. but also as an indirect antecedent through consumption value. was intended to provide some insight on this issue and encourage marketers to focus their efforts on understanding how to effectively develop and implement strong and consistent brand images. but not exactly the same. marketers constantly encounter the issue of how to establish consistent brand image across the globe despite cultural differences. overlooking the interlinking between cultural values and consumption values. each cultural value and consumption value should be carefully considered in establishing global brand image strategies. This could be justified by Samiee and Roth’s (1992) finding that 716 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. and Steenkamp (2001) noted that culture has long been recognized as a major factor underlying systematic differences in behavior. Under this framework. have not addressed the concept of individual consumption value that is specific to a product. Even though the global brand strategies adopted by transnational corporations have received a great deal of attention. and geographic distance affect brand image perception. whose product lines change frequently. this study was conducted using an apparel product. which will enable them to successfully compete in the global market. 1992. In order to support this. McGregor (2000) empirically showed that cultural value and consumption value are related. standardized brand image strategies should be modified and adapted according to cultural and consumption differences across nations. Farhangmehr. 2007). In this context. which belongs to a brand. This study. Most global apparel companies. this study proposed a conceptual framework which incorporated cultural value not only as a direct antecedent of brand image. cultural dimensions. He noted that cultural value influences consumption value in that cultural value is seen to act as a justification for individuals acquiring certain goods and services. through crosscultural comparative analysis using cultural value as a proxy for consumption value. & Shoham. and South Korea.(1984) cultural dimensions. implement standardized image strategies. 1995b) emphasized that countries are culturally heterogeneous. As apparel brands are representative of globalized consumer product brands. Consumers from different cultures may use different product attributes to express similar underlying consumption values (Tse. however. Hsieh (2002) proposed a measure of the degree of global brand image perception cohesiveness across markets as an indicator of the degree of brand globalization and found that national characteristics such as the level of economic development. Concerning global brand image. Related to brand globalization. Huang and Tai (2003) also identified significant effects of cultural value on consumption value.1002/mar . Recognizing the differences in cultural and consumption values across markets and their impact on brand images. cultural value and consumption value. it was hypothesized that brand image as well as its two antecedents. and then empirically tested it for both the U. The aforementioned studies. In recent years. Wong. therefore. As such. other research (Roth.

modes through which people tend to perceive. The following section discusses how brand image is influenced by cultural and consumption values and shows the development of the hypotheses. Martinez. Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) defined brand image as “the concept of a brand held by the consumer and is largely a subjective and perceptual phenomenon formed through consumer interpretation” (p. three hypotheses are developed. Pointing out the need for the development of different scale items of brand image according to product category.” 1998). Polo. experience. Low and Lamb (2000) proposed a protocol for developing product category–specific measures of brand image which was empirically tested. ideas about how to reflect these differences in actual strategies is vague due to the lack of empirical tests. 717 GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. Based on these findings. sponsoring organization. assortment. 118). Based on analyzing and tabulating the open-ended responses. and advertising. the brand image scale used in this study was developed following the protocol recommended by Low and Lamb. Martinez & Chernatony. a globalized clothing brand being the subject. However. there is no consensus on the most accurate and effective standardized measurement for brand image (Hsieh & Li. which are expected to be inherently different across nations. or attitudes that they associate with a brand. 2008). & Chernatony. such as manufacturing. personal values. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Cultural values are identified as influential factors on brand images (Roth. marketing practitioners have emphasized that marketing mix. to provide any ideas. type of people associated with the use of brand. and context variables. feelings.marketers are more likely to standardize their marketing programs when they compete in industries where product changes are frequent. this study conceptualized that cultural value and consumption value. it may be meaningful to examine whether these individual and cultural differences lead to different brand images across nations. who are relevant to a main study population. 2000). McGregor. 1995a) and consumption values are related to cultural values (Henry. most frequently named terms are used to develop semantic differential brand image items which are asked of the study’s sample while showing a brand advertisement. Besides the diverse definitions. 1994). 1982. Based on this conceptual framework. Also. 2008. In consideration of this. 1992. By tracing various definitions and justifications. 2004. this study may show how vulnerable a standardized strategy is in building and sustaining the same brand image across nations where cultural and consumption values differ. formulate brand images. 2003. Therefore. Park & Srinivasan. Dobni and Zinkhan (1990) addressed factors that contribute to developing brand image: product attributes.1002/mar . brand image is defined in a variety of ways. 1976. However. Brand Image In marketing research. should take into account cultural differences (“Translating a Brand Image Abroad. This protocol begins with a pretest which asks a small number of respondents. marketing mix. Measurements should be customized to accommodate the unique characteristics of specific brand categories (Bearden & Etzel. Huang & Tai.

Most of this research used Hofstede’s (1984) cultural dimensions as cultural values 718 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. & Pettijohn. retailer image perception (Pettijohn. studies to understand the differences in global brand image between the home market and foreign markets are still limited. 1999). Villarejo-Ramos & Sánchez-Franco. price promotion (Hunt & Keaveney. Perceptions about brand images spurred by standardized brand image strategies may differ significantly in different countries according to each country’s cultural and consumption values which are learned behaviors.1002/mar . Therefore. Hsieh. As globalization is a pervasive phenomenon in the business arena. 1998). and South Korea are quite different from each other because of their different cultures. and Europe on brand name image rather than on brand image. there is only one study (Zinkhan & Prenshaw. among Asia. which are culturally determined. and cultural values refer to the core of the entire culture’s mindset shared by a society (McGregor. Cultural Value Culture provides a sort of shared understanding among people in a society that allows them to predict and coordinate social activities (Sternquist. 1997). the U. Most of the attention on brand image has focused on identifying the relationship between brand image and consumer behavior at the national level. In entering foreign markets.Despite the growing importance of global brand image in the international marketing arena.S. and South Korea. Most research related to this issue is focused on products rather than on brands. 1994. as the first step to identify this relationship.S. much research has been conducted on cultural values across the globe. 1994) that identified the impact of differences in visions of good life. Therefore. 2000. Shared cultural values help to shape the contingencies to which members of a society should adapt in the institutions in which they spend their time (Schwartz. this study hypothesized the difference in brand image perceptions between the U. 1992). it seems apparent that cultural values in the U.S. such as consumer personality (Shank & Langmeyer. 1992. Even though the issue of how brand images differ across nations is dealt with in many studies (Roth.S. there is no research about the influence of cultural and consumption values on brand image. revealing that marketing success depends on knowledge of cultural differences.. 2002).. consumption situation (Graeff. 2006). Mellott. H1: There are differences in brand image perceptions between the U. 1994). marketers should deal with the issue of standardization versus adaptation to local markets. In spite of the growing awareness of the importance of global brand image to international marketers. there is a need to review the issue related to standardized brand image strategy which might not fit with cultural values of all countries. and South Korea. Schenk & Holman. and behavioral outcomes (Esch et al. 2005). self image (Graeff. although the retailer operates using a standard format throughout the globe. 1996. 1995a. 2000). especially the differences of brand images cross-nationally. Cox. Thus. Hogg. & Keeling. Sternquist (1998) pointed out that the element of culture is an important factor for retailers and that the retailer is being confronted with culturally different surroundings. Related to brand. 1980). there has been no research on whether cultural values may influence brand image.

Long & Shiffman. social value is “derived from its association with one or more distinctive social groups” (p. 32). 38). and Gross (1991) provided standardized procedures and questionnaire formats to researchers by enabling them to adapt them to their research topics. and Tan (1988) found differences of clothing consumption values using product attribute importance as consumption value measures in their GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. uncertainty avoidance. The theory recommends using focus groups in developing consumption value scales. Finch. & Lin.S. In the clothing research arena. & Rabas.. Pope. and mastery) and uses 45 items in measuring such values. Johnson & Lenartowicz. this study used an open-ended questionnaire because of the difficulty of using the same level of qualified interviewers and the location and time limitations across the U. Wong.. Steenkamp (2001) noticed that SVS has much potential for international marketing studies because of its solid theoretical foundation. 2000. Trombley. conservatism. arouse curiosity. Consumption Value As this study was specific to apparel and clothing. 2006. 2008. Chen. 2002. Other measurement instruments. SVS is composed of seven types of values (harmony. 1999) showed the structure of SVS efficiently capturing the differences in national cultures of over 40 nations. and South Korea. egalitarianism. epistemic value is “derived from its capacity to provide novelty. 1994). including the U. In identifying consumer behavior related to consumption values. and South Korea. 1998. and SVS (Schwartz Value Survey). and South Korea. and Gross’ (1991) theory of consumption values. this study used SVS to measure cultural values in the two countries.S. the term clothing value is widely perceived to have the same meaning as clothing consumption value. Thus. 2007.S. & Koning. 1998) have used Sheth. and conditional value is “derived from its capacity to provide temporary functional or social value in the context of a specific and transient set of circumstances or contingencies” (p.1002/mar 719 . emotional value. social value. it used the variable clothing consumption value. have been used to measure cultural values in marketing studies. composed of functional value. SVS recently has been applied in various research (Collins. and conditional value. 62). Newman. This study followed the theory in identifying consumption value of clothing. and/or satisfy knowledge-seeking aspirations” (p. Steg. Polegarto & Bjerke. Schwartz (1994. epistemic value. The theory of Sheth. Hartman et al. and it is appropriate in capturing value content due to its flexibility. individualism– collectivism. affective autonomy. The theory defined each value as follows: Functional value is “the utility that is perceived to possess on criteria salient to its physical or functional purposes” (p. 2006) attesting to its usefulness. and power distance. intellectual autonomy. including masculinity–femininity. 50). This study adopted the term clothing consumption value because it is more widely used in the marketing arena than clothing value. 69). Newman. emotional value is “derived from feelings or affective states” (p. 1998. hierarchy. H2: There are differences in cultural values between the U.(Sondergaard. which refers to the values attached to the consumption of clothing. RVS (Rokeach Value Survey). such as VALS (Values and Lifestyle Segmentation). Shang. Tse. many studies (Albaum et al. however. LOV (List of Values).

and Taiwan). as suggested by Low and Lamb (2000). and Polo implements standardized advertising and merchandise strategies across the global market. Hong Kong. The differences are worth studying as most global fashion retailers targeting the younger generation generate standardized advertisements assuming clothing consumption values are the same across the globe. a Confucian culture. First. Singapore. Based on this study. The brand Polo was chosen both because there are abundant subjects around the globe who know the brand well enough to rate its brand image. and South Korea. popular/unpopular. professional/unprofessional. Advertising is essential to the process of informing consumers of inherent product benefits and positioning the brand in their mind (Meenaghan. sophisticated/unsophisticated. colorful/dull.S. The content and frequency analyses led to 14 items for the U. and the most frequently named responses in each category were selected to develop semantic differential items to measure brand image.S. elegant/inelegant. Fifty-three female university students from the U. H3: There are differences in consumption values between the U. luxurious/economic. and South Korea. Brand image measures were developed by a pretest. The final set of 24 brand image items were selected: expensive/inexpensive. trendy/outdated. it seems apparent that there are differences in clothing consumption values between the United States. The open-ended responses were categorized on the basis of common meanings and content and examined by frequency. and 60 from South Korea were asked to write down brand image words representing ideas. cute/ugly. unique/ common.S.cross-cultural study. this study did not provide an advertisement for the following two reasons. romantic/practical. South Korea. feelings. comfortable/uncomfortable. good quality/poor quality. METHOD Developing Measurement of Variables Measures for Brand Image. youthful/old.S. 1995). global/ local. Low and Lamb (2000) showed an advertisement for a brand to their subjects before asking them to rate the brand image. active/inactive. and attitudes that they associated with clothing. The researchers of this study examined Polo’s advertisements in American fashion magazines such as Vogue and Allure and the Korean versions of those magazines and confirmed that the company used the same advertisements in the U. high status/low status. with nine items common to both countries. casual/formal. The researchers also confirmed that the advertisements did not contain any culturally relevant stimuli that could have been evaluated and processed differently by individuals within the individualist culture and the collective culture as found by Leach and Liu (1998). feel positive/feel negative. fun/boring. which found differences in clothing consumption values in five geographically proximate Asia Pacific regions (Japan. fashion/basic.1002/mar . and 19 for South Korea. creating images in consumers’ minds depends on specific advertising appeals such as 720 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. a Western culture. feminine/masculine. and South Korea. However. sexy/unappealing. Therefore. and soft/hard.

and the number of cultural value items for each factor was 6. Moon & Chan. 1). emotional. 1999). unlabeled (2. Subjects were asked to express their brand images of Polo on 24 brand image scales following the question. 4. this study showed an image of the Polo brand logo to its subjects. a pilot test was conducted with 62 female university students from the U. and Gross (1991).. Newman. and 66 from South Korea who were not included in the pretest for developing brand image measures. they lacked a consistent clothing consumption values measurement. Gregory & Munch. 3. social. 1997. 1997). affective autonomy. feelings.” using a nine-point scale: of supreme importance (7). the Polo brand logo was shown on the top of the brand image questions in the questionnaire. price ranges. Acknowledging that brand logo as a visual stimulus is a crucial part of brand strategy (Henderson et al.. since semantic differential is regarded as a common tool for measuring perceptions of brands (Fry & Claxton. Measures for Cultural Value.value-expressive. 1999. 4). symbolic. extremely casual to extremely formal). especially across countries. Therefore. Although many studies were conducted to identify clothing values and the influence of those values on clothing behaviors. 2007. or utilitarian. respectively. Roberts & Hart. 15. an identical brand logo is used throughout its extended brand products and brand image strategies globally. Second. Polo has many affiliated brands that have their own design concepts. In developing clothing consumption values. (3) “What triggered your decision to purchase clothing GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. instead of showing an advertisement of one of Polo’s brands. conservatism. and 3. Measures for Clothing Consumption Value. Each value item was followed by a short explanatory phrase in parentheses. the following questions were used to draw out measurements of each of the five values (functional. Fam & Grohs. emotional. The students were asked to provide some of the most important attributes. and conditional value items respectively) from subjects: (1) “What are some of the benefits (physical and utilitarian attributes) or problems that you associate with purchasing clothing?”. 9. Because there is no single best measurement of clothing consumption value. important (3). asocial. 1994. not important (0). For these reasons. (2) “What feelings are aroused by your decision to purchase clothing?”. through brand extension. aspirations. 2003) and that. epistemic. composed of functional. harmony. or opposed to my values (Ϫ1). epistemic. hierarchy. there was a concern that showing a single Polo advertisement to the subjects of this study might merely make them focus on the one brand. For this. 1971). this study developed a clothing consumption value measurement utilizing the theory of consumption value by Sheth. 1998. 5.1002/mar 721 . associations. unlabeled (5. egalitarianism. “I think that the brand is. 2005. This study used 45 items from the most recent study by Schwartz (1999). following Sheth. and temporary values that influence their purchasing of clothing. measuring mastery. and conditional values. Lowe & Corkindale. and Gross’s consumption value theory. and target markets. Using scales developed by Schwartz (1992. as described in Schwartz’s (1992) study. Newman.S. the subjects of this study were asked to rate the importance of each value item “as guiding principles in my life. very important (6). and intellectual autonomy. in the case of Polo. These advertising appeals are also found by some research to be the reflection of consumers’ commonly held values (Cho et al.” Semantic differential scales ranging from extremely (ϩ1) to extremely (ϩ7) were used (for example.

Conducting this study with university students may also provide useful information to the marketing arena recognizing the growing importance of young 722 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. were selected. For conditional value.S. the question recommended by the theory is intended to measure the degree of consumers’ beliefs about certain social groups’ behaviors as consumers. The question on social value in this study was not consistent with the case of “buy or not to buy” cited in the theory of consumption value by Sheth.S. 1999). subjects were asked to indicate how much they are associated with each referent when purchasing clothing and how much their behavior in purchasing clothing would be changed by each condition. As similar segments of consumers across borders are more likely to be found in urban than in rural areas (Quelch. Epistemic values were measured by asking subjects to indicate their level of agreement with reasons for purchasing their clothing. subjects were asked to complete 41 consumption value scales under each value category. (4) “What are the groups of people associated with the clothing you purchase?”.S. and two from the South Korean subjects. Data Collection Aiming to better support hypotheses of the difference of values and brand images between the U. four in common for both countries. Newman. For emotional value. and complexity)?”. emotional. subjects were asked to indicate their feelings associated with their decision to purchase clothing. and (5) “What are the circumstances or situations that would cause you to purchase clothing?” For each value. and South Korea. For measuring social value and conditional value. and epistemic values and from extremely not at all (ϩ1) to extremely very much (ϩ7) for social and conditional values. students in urban areas were selected.(usually pertaining to curiosity and the desire for knowledge. four from the U. subjects. For social value. Since university students are more homogenous than other samples. respectively. ranging from strongly disagree (ϩ1) to strongly agree (ϩ7) for functional.S. four in common for both countries. For functional value. two from the U. nine items. The fact that the two cities are generally perceived as two of the most cosmopolitan cities in the two countries was also considered in the selection process. two from the U. The most frequently named responses from each country in each value were selected and combined as clothing consumption values held by consumers in both countries. In the questionnaire. five in common for both countries. subjects. six items. there were nine items. Regarding emotional value. subjects. There were nine items. Seven-point Likert-type scales were used.S. the responses obtained from each country were separately categorized and examined by frequency. As a result. and Gross (1991). and three from the South Korean subjects. four in common for both countries and two from the U. eight items of salient responses. the sample for this study was composed of female university students in the San Francisco and Seoul metropolitan areas. subjects. were determined. novelty. subjects were asked to indicate their perception of each benefit or problem associated with purchasing clothing. the question was modified to investigate the degree of influence of social groups associated with purchasing clothing.1002/mar . and one from the South Korean subjects. six in common for both countries and one each from the U. for epistemic value. and South Korean subjects.S. were determined for functional value. Therefore. this study employed subjects who were homogeneous across the two countries.

The questionnaire for this study contained measurement scales of brand image. goodness-of-fit index (GFI).33% and 63. cultural values. The Amos 4. an eigenvalue of greater than one was used as the criterion for extracting factors.S. To identify the underlying factors of brand image and each of the five consumption values. and consumption values. Total variance explained with the four factors was 62. the data were gathered by surveying female students during fashion-related classes at a university in San Francisco and two universities in Seoul. The fits were evaluated by examining chi-square statistics. the proliferation of the Internet has accelerated the pace towards homogeneity among the younger generation of the world. not only because their frame of reference is relatively more international or cosmopolitan.S. but also because they receive much of their information about the world from sources that incorporate a worldwide perspective. and epistemic values and three factors each for social and conditional values were extracted after eliminating one item of social value and two items of each of epistemic and conditional values. an exploratory factor analysis using principal component method with varimax rotation was performed. and the fit of the model proposed in this study. In conducting factor analysis. This study also examined comparative fit index (CFI) because CFI is robust to sample size while other indexes are not (Bentler. and 66.0 program was also used for structural equation modeling using maximum likelihood estimation in order to provide confirmatory factor analysis.1002/mar 723 . two factors each for functional. Currently. 1990).05%.29%.81%.50) and sizable crossloadings on more than one factor. emotional. and epistemic values was 53. He suggested that the youth segment is the first to tap because their tastes are strongly influenced by the mass media. Utilizing the convenience sampling method. and South Korea to extract the common factor items of the two countries and thus could show the relative differences of brand images and values between the two countries. Total variance explained with the three factors for social and conditional values was 64. the fit of the scales. Comparing the brand images and values between the two countries based on the same brand images and values enables this study to achieve its research purpose. which deliver many of the same images to the globe simultaneously. Four factors of brand image were extracted after eliminating 11 items.consumers in the global market. In conducting the analysis.36%. emotional. 158 questionnaires from the U. normed fit index (NFI). For consumption values. respectively. A factor reduction process was carried out to eliminate the scale items having small loadings (below 0. and Tucker-Lewis index (TLI). respectively. this study used combined data from the U.85%. Total variance explained with the two factors for functional. RESULTS Factor Analysis and Variable Reliabilities Exploratory Factor Analysis. and 171 from South Korea were used in exploratory factor analysis and discriminant analysis using the SPSS program. Solomon (2007) pointed out that global marketing efforts are likely to succeed when targeting consumers in different countries who share a common world view. 67. GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.

99 0.1 6 0. p ϭ 0.0 1 0. Chi-square statistics were significant and GFI.000.7 0 0.99 5.99 1.97 0.02 0. subjects.95.98 0.08. p ϭ 0. For brand image.99 1.05 0.99 0.74 3 Conditional value 0. CFI ϭ 0.02 11. seven-factor analysis was performed for each group separately. which was used by Schwartz (1999).031.97 0.30 0.70 for the U.98 0.26 0.24 0. Cultural Value.66 and 0. the tests were conducted for each group separately.96 565. TLI ϭ 0.00 4.99 0. The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the two factors of brand image were 0.98 0.88 0.99 0. indicating responses to the brand image could be explained by the two factors. U.83 and 0. indicating that acceptable reliability was achieved for both countries. fit to each of the two countries.S. confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to further investigate whether the extracted factor properties of the scales fit to each of the two countries. ␹2 ϭ 565.98 0.85 0.Confirmatory Factor Analysis.58 and 0.00 1.08 0.6 Emotional value 2. a two-factor model was best fitted and two items and one item each of the two factors were eliminated in the process.85) for both subjects were Table 1.S.88 8. Throughout this process.98 0.1002/mar .99 1.99 0.99 0. The tests for the factorial validity for each country are shown in Table 1.1 3 0.06 1.98 0.6 4 0.03 0.99 0.22 1. GFI ϭ 0. For this variable.15 0. In order to confirm the cultural value dimensionality. TLI.98 0.72 0.01 1. The fit of the scale items confirmed the cultural value dimensionality as follows: For the U. Dimensionality Test for Brand Image.90 1.05 0. Therefore.98 (see Table 1). and CFI were also quite acceptable.00 0. Although the ␹2 statistic was significant and the values of GFI (0.00 Consumption Value Functional value 5.97 1. CFA was also conducted for the cultural value scale in order to investigate whether the seven-dimension structure of cultural value. subjects and 0.99 1.30 7 Epistemic value 9.02 0. the factors could be considered to best represent the structure of brand image items for each country.98 0. hierarchy.72.3 9 0. two items each of mastery. for the South Korean subjects.50 or not significant with their latent variables at p Ͻ 0.85. items and factors which had factor loadings and regression weights below 0. CFI ϭ 0.1 Social value 0.83.05 in either data set were eliminated to develop common factors or dimensions for both countries.98.95 0.S. Regarding brand image and consumption value scales. and Consumption Value.7 7 0. and the modification indexes were examined to eliminate or add paths as necessary.77 for the South Korean subjects (see Table 2). Using a first-order CFA model. TLI ϭ 0.22 Cultural Value 647.00 1.26 0.3 2 0.98 724 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.96.83 0.84 0. and egalitarian values and three items of conservatism value were eliminated. GFI ϭ 0.00 0. ␹2 ϭ 647.97 0.00 0. (N ϭ 158) ␹2 p GFI TLI CFI ␹2 Korea (N ϭ 171) p GFI TLI CFI Brand Image 7.99 1.

76 0.1002/mar 725 .90 0. Fashion forward people influence Celebrities/High society people. Harmony 4.79 0.64 0.90 0.77 0.Table 2.89 0.54 0. Hedonic Seeking I often feel like buying anything including clothes/ I sometimes purchase clothing by impulse/ I want to change my mood by purchasing clothes. Conditional Value 1. Peer influence Friends/People who have the same taste with me. Reliability for Brand Image. Situational factor Weather condition/Have time to shop. 2.52 0. Benefit Clothes make me look better/Clothes protect my body/ I enjoy aesthetic of clothing/I enjoy expressing myself with clothes.66 0. Conservatism 6.87 0. Affective autonomy 7.S.80 0.50 0. Social Value 1.79 0.74 0. Intellectual autonomy Consumption Value Functional Value 1. and Consumption Value U. Stimulation by others Stimulation by shopping companions/Stimulation by sales persons. 2.70 0.58 0.87 0.89 0.70 0. Cultural Value.53 0. Mastery 2. 2. 0. Refined Inelegant–Elegant/Practical–Romantic/Negative–Positive. (N ϭ 158) a Brand Image 1.87 0.84 0.85 0.56 0. Emotional Value Good/Confident/Satisfied/Excited Epistemic Value 1.66 Korea (N ϭ 171) a 0.87 0.83 0.85 0. 2.79 0.58 GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.78 0.80 0. Hierarchy 3.50 0. I like the aesthetic expression through clothing. Cultural Value 1.77 0. Egalitarian 5.84 0. Novelty Seeking I like clothes that are new different/ I like to experiment with clothing. Trendy Outdated–Trendy/Unappealing–Sexy. 2. Problem It is difficult because clothes don’t fit me well/ It is difficult to find comfortable clothes.

a first-order CFA model was used for each value dimension in order to investigate the factorial validity of each value dimension. except for one factor each of social and conditional values. The observed variables for brand image and cultural value were calculated with the means of factor and dimension items. CFA confirmed the seven-dimension structure of cultural value was well fitted across the two countries.50. related to the three variables. subjects (a ϭ 0. The Cronbach’s coefficient alphas for the factors of cultural value ranged from 0.89 for the South Korean subjects (see Table 2). Therefore. indicating that all item measures for each cultural value dimension showed high degrees of internal consistency in both countries. and other fit statistics were also quite acceptable. Throughout the analyses.88 and conditional value ϭ 0. For the South Korean subjects. it could be concluded that the seven-dimension structure of cultural value is validated for the data across the two countries. the factors derived from exploratory factor analysis. one item each of one factor in epistemic value and of two factors in social value and two items of one factor in functional value were eliminated. the results showed the generated factors from the combined data adequately fit to the data of each country. and thus the factors could be used as common factor items for both countries to show the relative differences of brand images and values. this study retained these factors based on the CFA for each country.indicative of a very poor fit. which the hypotheses of this study were based on.56) and the South Korean subjects (a ϭ 0. all of which were below 0.S.60 (see Table 2).1002/mar .S. The tests for the factorial validity for each country are shown in Table 1. as in the study of Schwartz (1999). there was an additional need to test for the validity of a causal structure. and 726 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. Therefore. emotional.90. were retained for further analysis. this study proceeded to test the differences of responses of factorial and dimensional structures of each variable between the two countries. The extracted factors and established dimensions of variables in the model were used as observed variables. two values showed minimal acceptable values of TLI: emotional value ϭ 0. Regarding brand image and value dimensions of consumption value. Consequently. enabling this study to conduct further analysis. However. and epistemic values and the three-factor analysis was for social and conditional values. but not as latent variables.53). social. also. 0. of one factor of social value for the South Korean subjects (a ϭ 0. This is not problematic because the aforementioned CFA for each country confirmed their factorial and dimensional validity.78 to 0. respectively. and conditional values was eliminated. subjects (a ϭ 0. one factor each of emotional. The results indicate that all factor structures of each consumption value dimension were well fitted across the two countries.52. it could be concluded that responses to the value dimensions of consumption value could be explained by extracted factors.58). All factors for both countries except for emotional value for the South Korean subjects did not reach ␹2 statistical significance. and of two factors of conditional values for both for the U. Despite the low internal consistency of one factor of functional value both for the U.70 to 0. TLI and CFI were quite acceptable.S. Test of Model Having sufficiently good fits of factorial structure and dimensionality of variables. For consumption value.54).90 for the U. subjects and from 0. The two-factor analysis was for functional.50) and the South Korean subjects (a ϭ 0. 0.

The goodness-of-fit measures indicated that the model represented a substantively reasonable fit to both countries.078. this study provided the path coefficients in Figure 1 in order to provide additional evidence that the model was 727 GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. CFI ϭ 0.27**) Brand Image Refined Cultural Value Ϫ0. ␹2 statistics were not significant.97 CFI 0. Figure 1 shows the measures of the latent constructs from the conceptual framework and the path coefficients among latent constructs for each country with their degree of significance.39 p 0.93. GFI ϭ 0.98 those for consumption value were calculated with the means of factor scores.21* Functional Emotional Epistemic Social Conditional Note: Path coefficients for the U. For both countries. Table 3.01. TLI ϭ 0. p ϭ 0. ␹2 U.123.Mastery Hierarchy Harmony Egalitarian Conservatism Trendy Affective Autonomy Intellectual Autonomy 0.S. for the South Korean subjects.22 87.22.94 TLI 0.S. * p Ͻ 0. subjects.078 GFI 0.S. and CFI were also a quite acceptable fit: For the U.001. Figure 1. Dotted arrows indicate insignificant paths for the Korean subjects.1002/mar . p ϭ 0. ␹2 ϭ 87. The goodness-of-fit measures for the proposed model for each data set is shown in Table 3.98 0.98 0. TLI ϭ students (N ϭ 158) Korean students (N ϭ 171) 76.29* (Ϫ0.97. and the values of GFI. TLI. subjects are shown with those for the Korean subjects in parentheses.48*** (0.94. The conceptual framework was tested on each data set using structural equation modeling. GFI ϭ 0.98. which were calculated with the means of factor items.93 0. CFI ϭ 0. **p Ͻ 0. Fit Statistics of the Model (Goodness-of-Fit Measures).98. ␹2 ϭ 76. Even though the purpose of this study was not to identify the effect of cultural value and consumption value on brand image. ***p Ͻ 0.17*) Consumption Value 0.123 0. Structural equation model.

indicating that cultural value is a determinant of brand image and consumption value intervenes in the process.24 0. For brand image.adequately proposed. Hypothesis Test In order to ascertain the differences in the extracted factors from brand image and consumption value and dimensions of cultural value between the U. For the South Korean subjects.S. and South Korea. since this reveals the factors and dimensions discriminating the two countries as well as the differences between the two countries. U.04 M Ϫ1.12 0. Therefore. All the significant path coefficients confirmed the proposed relationship between the variables in the model was acceptable. Although the refined factor was a discriminating variable. all paths except the one between cultural value and brand image were significant. it can be concluded that the differences in cultural and consumption values result in different brand images between the two countries and that the model fit for each country is acceptable for further analysis to test the hypotheses. it could be concluded that.95 0. data were analyzed by stepwise discriminant analysis. indicating that the U.S.11 728 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. the two factors of brand image were retained by the stepwise procedure.474 0. subjects were more likely to perceive the brand to be trendy and refined than the South Korean subjects.678 126. The results showed why brand images are different between the two countries: It is because cultural values significantly influence brand image directly and/or indirectly through consumption value. *** p Ͻ 0. it showed little influence. For the U. whereas for the South Korean subjects. subjects.446*** M 0.567 0.12. As such.S. the trendy factor of brand image was a powerful discriminating variable. The differences in the factors of brand image for the two countries supported H1.92 Coefficient 0. Korea SD 1.S. and Korea.10 Ϫ0. Discriminant Analysis for Brand Images Between the U.06 SD 0. As shown in Table 4.001.95. with the coefficient of 0. Factor Trendy Refined Eigenvalue Canonical correlation Wilks’ lambda Chi-square Notes: Scale ranges from 1 to 7. all paths were significant. cultural value has influence on brand image only indirectly through consumption value.86 0. The findings suggest that Polo’s marketing efforts to build brand images in the South Korean market should be focused on making South Korean consumers perceive the brand to be trendy Table 4. for the U.1002/mar .19 1. with standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient of 0. subjects. cultural value influences brand image not only directly but also indirectly through consumption values.S.S.

in that order. while South Koreans are more likely to be influenced by the hedonic seeking factor. the situational factor of conditional value is the most discriminating variable.74 3.48 Coefficient 0. two were retained by the stepwise procedure. Ϫ0.25 Ϫ0.665 0. *** p Ͻ 0. Table 6 presents the results of the discriminant analysis for consumption values. subjects from the South Korean subjects.Table 5. intellectual autonomy.55. supporting H3.13 4.1002/mar 729 . The results suggest that brand building should reflect different value systems across the two countries.12. Factor Egalitarian Affective autonomy Intellectual autonomy Hierarchy Harmony Eigenvalue Canonical correlation Wilks’ lambda Chi-square Note: Scale ranges from 1 to 9. when purchasing clothing. In other words.S. Discriminant Analysis for Cultural Values Between the U.25.27 1. Americans are more likely to be influenced by the situational factor.791 0. and Korea. intellectual autonomy.558 186. it can be concluded that cultural values were different across the two countries. The results showing different purchasing motives for the Polo brand in the two countries suggest that different consumption values should be reflected in efforts to build consistent brand images across nations.95 4.46 5. and harmony values more important than South Koreans. Therefore. With the coefficient of 0. Table 5 presents the results of the discriminant analysis for cultural values. affective autonomy. and the affective autonomy.39 1. knowing that Americans are more likely to consider egalitarian. and 0. harmony.49 1. and hierarchy values were influential. GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.08.79 0.65 M 3.785*** M 5. Of the seven dimensions of cultural value. U.S.70 3.63 SD 1. The hedonic seeking factor of epistemic value has little influence.08. with the coefficients of 0. while South Koreans are more likely to consider hierarchy value more important than Americans. respectively.08 0. The results indicate that. with the coefficient of Ϫ0. localized branding content touching consumers at different levels of consumption values in each country would be effective for building a consistent global brand image across nations.55 0.96. five were retained by the stepwise procedure.19 1.65 1. Of the nine factors of consumption values. with the coefficients of 0.001. supporting H2. Korea SD 1. supporting the need for localized marketing communication efforts to sustain a consistent global brand image across nations.12 0. 0. The egalitarian value dominated in discriminating the U.81 5.87 and refined as much as their American counterparts do.79.85 5.05 3.S.

*** p Ͻ 0. marketing managers should also take into account the differences in cultural and consumption values in those countries. Americans were more likely to value egalitarian. compared to South Koreans.863*** M 5.08 0.01 SD 1. This would be the first empirical study to approach brand images across nations by identifying the differences in underlying consumption values along with cultural values with scales developed to measure the values and brand images held by consumers across nations.218 0. and harmony values compared to South Koreans.41 M 3. U. affective autonomy. intellectual autonomy. Regarding consumption values. cultural values. and Korea. Regarding cultural values.23 Coefficient 0.Table 6. and consumption values. Americans were more likely to perceive the Polo brand to be trendy and refined compared to South Koreans.821 63. Regarding brand images.S. When communicating with consumers in different countries.96 Ϫ0.19 1. As indicated by the results of discriminant analysis. The results of this study may serve as guidelines for apparel companies in adapting standardized brand image strategies seeking to establish and sustain consistent global brand images across nations.91 CONCLUSIONS This study examined the effectiveness of standardized brand image strategies and revealed the differences in brand images in two countries. The findings offer some insights about what differences in brand image could exist between different countries and may help global retailers in implementing brand image manipulations in each individual country for the sake of establishing and maintaining consistent brand images across nations.95 5. however. Factor Conditional value (Situational factor) Epistemic value (Hedonic seeking) Eigenvalue Canonical correlation Wilks’ lambda Chi-square Note: Scale ranges from 1 to 7. which are products of differences in cultural and consumption values.22 1.001. American were more likely to be influenced by situational factors. The issue of how brand images differ across nations has been reviewed by many studies.1002/mar .03 4. whereas South Koreans were more likely to emphasize the hedonic pleasure of their consumption of clothing compared to Americans. such as weather conditions and having time to shop. none before this study has offered information about the influence of cultural and consumption values on brand images.S. the subjects of this study in two countries held different brand images. Korea SD 1. whereas South Koreans were more likely to value hierarchy compared to Americans.423 0. the result of the discriminant analysis showing powerful variables discriminating the two subject 730 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. Moreover. Discriminant Analysis for Consumption Values Between the U.

For instance. The results clearly show that consumers in different countries have different brand images for a specific brand. therefore. Therefore. it is possible to conclude that the perceptions about brand images spurred by standardized brand image strategies differ in different countries according to each country’s cultural and consumption values. as Hsieh (2002) showed that countries with similar levels of economic development have similar brand image perceptions. the results of this study might stem from the differences between Confucian and Western cultures beyond the national differences. the possibility of generalization of causal relationships between cultural value and brand image in the two countries in this study should be explored by empirically testing across GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. Based on the additional findings of causal relationship in this study. Global marketers could use these results in enhancing their understanding of what makes consumers’ perceptions of a brand in different countries different. further studies may replicate this study for different countries in Confucian and Western cultures. Second. may include additional variables in an effort to identify the differences in brand images across the globe. This study improves the understanding of brand image dimensionality and consumption values across nations following a rigorous method to identify the brand image dimensionality and consumption values commonly held by the subject countries. In conducting cross-national studies.countries suggests on what aspects of global branding marketers should put more effort to be more effective. which are difficult to control by standardized strategies. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Reflecting on limitations of this study.1002/mar 731 . the result showing nonsignificance between cultural value and brand image for only the South Korean subjects suggests that the theoretical framework proposed in this study might not be generalized throughout the globe. therefore. The results that cultural values play a significant role in explaining different perceptions of brand image both directly and indirectly suggest that global marketers should continuously monitor the intrinsic value system in local markets and evaluate their global branding strategies across nations in terms of how each cultural difference influences their brand images. Fourth. Future research. First. which are learned behaviors. exclusion of some factors of brand image and values in discriminant analysis might be caused by their relatively low reliabilities. No differences in the results might imply that cultural characteristics rather than country characteristics should be considered in identifying the differences in brand images and that brand image study is the realm of the cross-cultural study of consumer behavior. Third. level of economic development as a national characteristic may be considered as a variable. And then the contents of standardized global branding strategies should reflect individual countries’ different brand image perception and value system. this study examined only cultural and consumption values in identifying differences in brand images across nations. and these are attributed to differences in cultural values and consumption values. future studies should use measures that are highly reliable in applying to all subject countries. some directions for future research are suggested as follows. There may be other variables that could influence brand images other than these values. In addition. and they may incorporate this in their global brand image strategies.

future studies should examine whether this framework is applicable to other countries. cross-sectoral. J. & Grohs. 24. M. Semantic differential and nonmetric multidimensional scaling descriptions of brand images. Bearden. Therefore. D. G. C. J. A.-S.S. G. J. REFERENCES Albaum. (1981). Assessing divergent disciplinary view of the globalization of consumption: An exploratory. How social influence affects consumption trends in emerging markets: An empirical investigation of the consumption convergence hypothesis. 8. 24.. M. Cho. 411–422. Standardization in international marketing: Is Ted Levitt in fact right? Business Horizons.. D. and ethical decision perspectives. (2002). H. G. & Zinkhan. 110–119. T. 21. Fry. 15. Biel.. In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. R. & Rabas. (1998). & Koning. A. Chen.. Finch.. Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and relationships affect current and future purchases. 183–194. L.. & Boller. Psychology & Marketing. S. G.. Collins.. International Marketing Review. M. Fifth.. 29. & Geus. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. F. M. Baker. J. P. Dunning.. 238–246. 28. Trombley. The role of multiple consumption values in consumer cooperative patronage: An application of the theory of market choice behavior. (2007). (2006). Gabel. W. Journal of Consumer Research.. U. Dobni. Boddewyn. (2000). Steg. 555–577. K. C. & Kropp. future studies should examine whether the proposed model can be generalizable to broader populations and businesses such as service and Internet industries other than consumer goods industries. Langner. 69–75. K. J. and buying behavior. & Rogers. Empirical results of this study may suggest new directions for a priori theorizing for future studies. the subjects of this study were limited to university students living in metropolitan areas and to apparel. Cultural values and effective executional techniques in advertising. Shang.. (1992). Customers’ values. U. beliefs on sustainable corporate performance. Psychology & Marketing. (1990). 44–56.. 50–76. 59–73. W. It should be of interest not only to marketers working cross-nationally. RC-6–RC-12.. Journal of Marketing Research. & Picard.. F. 519–538. The intention to download music files in a P2P environment: Consumption value. Electric Commerce Research and Applications. Sixth. Boston. T. M. Journal of Marketing Management. Hozier. (1986). Journal of Product & Brand Management. J. (1971). & Talukdar. 775–797. P.-C. Psychological Bulletin. Esch. Jun. J. MA: Allen & Unwin. J. M. C..various countries. Bentler. Gentry.-A. (2007). Y. and consumption values of teenagers: Implications for public policy and other intervention failures. and Korean Television commercials. R. Journal of Consumer Affairs. G. Schmitt. 17. 98–105. 9. & Claxton. Soehl. G. 107. 238–240... F. Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions.. Fam. (1982). (2004). 8.. (1990). 7. information sources. Cultural values reflected in theme and execution: A comparative study of U. J. 36.-R. D. D. E. (2008). Smoking behavior. J. W. R. International Production and the Multinational Enterprise. & Lin. Journal of Advertising. R. Kwon. Advances in Consumer Research. & Etzel. B. M. the researchers of this study experienced difficulty in a priori theorizing that constituted the hypotheses of this study because of limited prior research findings. 32.1002/mar . In other words. B. B. How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research. fashion. and ethnographic examination 732 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.. O. A. (1999). L...-K. but also to researchers working on brand image.. Dholakia.

& Liu A. K. J. M. 49–70. A. Holt. 332–356. & Keeling. Martinez... H. CA: Sage Publications. The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand image. 37–56. 21. 511–-532. K. Cox. A. (2003).. 23. C. J. A. GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. (1994). European Journal of Marketing. 271–304.1002/mar 733 . & Corkindale. Psychology & Marketing. (2002). Graeff. T. K. (1999). (2004). Psychology & Marketing... 26–42. P. and managing customer-based brand equity. (2003). J. & Tai. How global brands compete. 32. Conceptualizing. 19. I’d like to buy the world of Coke: Consumptionscapes of the “less affluent world. 47–70. 13. Henry. J. Johnson. Shim. 121–127. Different cultural values reflected in customer value perceptions of products: A comparative study of Chinese and American. 10. A. & Lamb. Quelch. H. Lackman. L. 481–499. & Schmitt.-K. Beverly Hills. Journal of Marketing Research. 39–50. 26. & Shiffman. A. (1996). B. C. Journal of Consumer Marketing. W. T. Hunt. Z. (2004). Image congruence effects on product evaluations: The role of selfmonitoring and public/private consumption.. 15. Cultural values do correlate with consumer behavior. M. (1996).. 843–867. A. G. W. A. M. & Guskey. M. B. 1–22. Leach. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Haynes. Hofstede. Journal of Product & Brand Management. Harvard Business Review. Consumption values and relationship: Segmenting the market for frequency programs. 20. (1984). Martinez. Psychology & Marketing. Adolescents’ utilitarian and hedonic web-consumption behavior: Hierarchical influence of personal values and innovativeness. Cultural values in international advertising: An examination of familial norms and roles in Mexico.. 166–172. J. M. T. R. freedom and economic growth: Do cultural values explain economic growth? Journal of World Business. Psychology & Marketing. Hsieh. B.. R. K. S. 8.. A. 33. 813–839. measuring. Leong. L. E. R. Consumption situations and the effects of brand image on consumers’ brand evaluations.. (2008). 34... & Khairullah. 16.. (2000).. 297–-313. A. & Li. S. A process model of the effects of price promotions on brand image. European Journal of Marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing. P. & Belk.. C. (1997).. & Chernatony. 523–546. Culture’s consequences. J. P.. Graeff. L. M. Journal of International Marketing. Psychology & Marketing. 28. Identifying brand image dimensionality and measuring the degree of brand globalization: A cross-national study. 14.. Lowe. Keller. Journal of International Marketing & Marketing Research. Khairullah. (2006). 350–368. and Indian print advertisement. Cote. Comprehensive brand presentation: Ensuring consistent brand image. & Chernatony. S. 13. G. W. E. (2000). L. International Marketing Review.. Journal of Consumer Marketing. Gregory. W. G. 57. Huang. Psychology & Marketing. Barber. Advances in Consumer Research.S. (1998). D. 286–300. 25. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 27. Hogg. Hartman. The impact of self-monitoring on image congruence and product/brand evaluation. M. (1998).. (1998). D. The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations. 68–75. C. Culture.. Low. 107–137. Building strong brands in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength.. 214–232. G. R. Effect of brand extension strategies on brand image: A comparative study of the UK and Spanish markets. Journal of Global Marketing.. M. Henderson. A. 11..” Journal of Consumer Policy. (2000).. D. Hsieh. E.of consumer-choice dynamism resulting from the influx of new forms of retailing. Journal of Marketing. Polo. 46–67. (1993). 82. B. 641–666. & O’Brien. L.-T. Y. (2008). D. 99–119. (2002). C. The moderating effect of brand image on public relations perception and customer loyalty. Dominant cultural values: Content analysis of the U. G. (1997). & Munch. S. & Keaveney. 9. M. The use of culturally relevant stimuli in international advertising. & Lenartowicz. (1976). 14. & Taylor. Long.. Differences in “cultural values” and their effects on responses to marketing stimuli: A cross-cultural study between Australians and Chinese from the People’s Republic of China. Ger. 17.

7th ed. Solomon. B. 24. & Pettijohn. T. 1–14. S. Journal of Product & Brand Management. H. The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. 7. Schwartz. brand and product use. M. 610–614. (1992). Roth. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Schwartz. 48. 55–72. & Holman. 50. (1994). 9–11. the U. 1–65. Consumption values. Journal of Marketing Theory & Practice. W. J. International Marketing Review. Pettijohn.1002/mar . Park. 19.. S. 34–28. (1992). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 32. Newman. 19–45. market. Hofstede’s dimensions of culture in international marketing studies. (1995a). D. H.. Advances in Consumer Research. (1994). 56. Sheth. D. 22. citations. (1995b). (2007). 271–288.. Business Strategy Review. 9.. OH: South-Western Publishing. A comparison of cultural value orientations as reflected by advertisements directed at the general U.. Applied Psychology: An International Review. S. 18. H.McCarty. 128. Roth. J. 48–66. S. The role of national culture in international marketing research. Effects of global market conditions on brand image customization and brand performance. Psychology & Marketing. (1992). 15. M. 7. E. 734 PARK AND RABOLT Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. 94–103. P. J. A sociological approach to brand choice: The concept of situational self image. C. N. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics. R. Journal of Product & Brand Management. 10. Using social and consumer values to predict market-place behaviour: Questions of congruency.. C.S. Journal of Advertising. H. & Srinivasan. S. Steenkamp. The link between cross-cultural value associations and linking: The case of Benetton and its advertising. Mellott. (2000). (1998). and the Mexican market. Consumer behavior. & Shoham. M. Soares. (2005). and replications. Global brands: Taking stock. Schenk. Journal of Marketing. V. (1992). Journal of Business Research. Pope. Depth versus breadth strategies for global brand image management. M. Farhangmehr. Shank. S. & Gross. M. Meenaghan. Journal of Marketing Research.. 46. 1–17. Journal of Advertising Research. Organization Studies. Sheth. (1986). 25. & Chan. Y. Samiee. Roberts. A. (1994). E. B. The influence of global marketing standardization on performance. 3. M. 25–37. R. M. & Hart. Advertising appeals and cultural values in television commercials: A comparison of Hong Kong and Korea. (2007). R (1980). 23–34. Polegarto. 157–164. (1994). M. (1999). Quelch. Consumption values and market choice. 277–284. 23–47.. (1999). L. Cincinnati. S.. The relationship between retailer image and brand image.. McGregor.. M. NJ: Prentice Hall. & Bjerke. Journal of Advertising. Does personality influence brand image? The Journal of Psychology. S. Cultural value orientation: A comparison of magazine advertisements from the United States and Mexico. 91–99. J. Moon. Hispanic market. L.. 24. Roth. J. S. C. 31.S. & Hattwick. Sondergaard. 163–175. Upper Saddle River. (1995). & Roth. Journal of Marketing Research. Advances in Consumer Research. 447–456. Global markets or global competition? Journal of Consumer Marketing. 6. A survey-based method for measuring and understanding brand equity and its extendability. The role of advertising in brand image development. International Marketing Review. 5. 21. & Langmeyer. 263–273. S. Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of reviews. sponsorship awareness. K. A. K. S. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues. S. Schwartz. 30–44. (1991). (1992). D. (1997).. 4. (2006). 311–328. 124–136. (2001).

ac. (1994). S. Brand Management.. A.. 336–351. Wong. (1998). M.. M. Translating a brand image abroad. R. 15. Kyeongki-Do 429-793. P. 3. 2121 Jeongwang-Dong. P. (1998. Zhou. Wind. 15. (2005). 441– GLOBAL BRAND IMAGE Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10. (1998). 25. K.. Wong. Advances in Consumer Research. Y. 12.1002/mar 735 . C.. Chain Store Age. 17. (2008). J. Advances in Consumer Research. L. Personal taste and family face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and Western societies. America. G. 195. May). Psychology & Marketing. 431–444. 387–395. Korea Polytechnic University. Siheung-Si.Sternquist. Y. and Europe. N. International retailing. 21. Good life images and brand name associations: Evidence from Asia. J. J. (1986). & Poon. Psychology & Marketing. Zinkhan. Teng. 496–500. K. Susceptibility to global consumer culture: A threedimensional scale. 423–441. Emerging issues in marketing. Towards some standardized cross-cultural consumption values. A. The myth of globalization. Tse. Villarejo-Ramos. G-209. Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Hye-Jung Park. Department of Liberal Arts. Taylor. L. (1988).. T. D. (2000). & Sánchez-Franco. C. & Ahuvia.. Korea (hpark@kpu. F. Journal of Consumer Marketing. The impact of marketing communication and price promotion on brand equity. New York: Fairchild Publications. & Tan.C. 23–26. & Prenshaw. Psychology & Marketing. B.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful