Article

Journal of International Marketing

2019, Vol. 27(1) 1-19
Global Versus Local Consumer Culture: ª American Marketing Association 2019
Article reuse guidelines:

Theory, Measurement, and Future sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1069031X18811289
journals.sagepub.com/home/jig
Research Directions

Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp

Abstract
The last few decades have seen the emergence of global consumer culture (GCC) as an important force in the marketplace. Yet, in
recent years, powerful political and economic forces suggest that globalization might be stalling, leading to renewed interest in
local consumer culture (LCC). This article provides an overview of where the field of international marketing stands on GCC and
LCC, and it presents new empirical insights. It elaborates on the roots of GCC and LCC in consumer culture theory, cultural
globalization theory, and acculturation theory. This background information sets the context for an in-depth discussion of how
international marketers have operationalized consumer attitudes toward GCC and LCC, and their individual-level and national-
cultural correlates. The article addresses behavioral and managerial consequences of GCC and LCC and concludes with areas for
future research.

Keywords
consumer culture positioning, global consumer culture, globalization, local consumer culture, perceived brand globalness
Online supplement: https://doi.org/10.1177/1069031X18811289

Market globalization has increased rapidly in the last few
decades. This phenomenon is due to a host of factors, such as
the collapse of communism; global opening of previously
closed markets in India, China, Eastern Europe, and Latin
America; worldwide investment and production; increases in
world travel and consumer sophistication; advances in tele-
communication technologies; and the growth of global media
(Steenkamp 2017). Several scholars (e.g., Appadurai 1996;
Ritzer 2007) and many in the popular media see these forces
of globalization as leading to increasing cultural homogeniza-
tion. Some have argued that globalization and (alleged) homo-
genization favor those marketers who are able to position their
brands as symbols of global consumer culture (GCC; Özsomer,
and Altaras 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Xie,
Batra, and Peng 2015).
At the same time, globalization processes offer opportuni-
ties for local brands to differentiate themselves on unique local
consumer culture (LCC) meanings (Schuiling and Kapferer
2004; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Their prospects may
be enhanced by growing indications that global integration is
stalling (Hu and Spence 2017). Brexit, “America First” policy,
America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
trade disputes, the refugee crisis in Europe, threats to the
Schengen Area (the ID-free travel zone within Europe), the
(re)emergence of increasingly assertive China and Russia, Chi-
na’s state-sponsored master plan (“Made in China”) to gain
global dominance in key industries, and heightened xenopho-
bia have undermined the seemingly inexorable march toward
greater global integration. Compared with, say, five years ago,
nationality and borders seem to have become more important.
If anything, this situation should make the distinction between
GCC and LCC even more important to consumers, firms, and
international marketing scholars.
Our discipline has long recognized the importance of GCC
and LCC. International marketing research on GCC and LCC
draws heavily on consumer culture theory (the domain of
anthropologists and ethnographic consumer researchers), cul-
tural globalization theory (studied by political scientists and
sociologists), and acculturation theory (developed in psychol-
ogy). Marketing academics use and adapt these theories to
study how GCC and LCC affect the marketplace. Much of this
research is focused on consumer behavior (demand side). Other
work examines managerial applications of GCC and LCC
Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp is C. Knox Massey Distinguished Professor of
Marketing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA (email: JBS@
unc.edu).
2 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)

Table 1. Selected Literature on GCC and LCC

Area of Research References

Theoretical Foundation
Consumer culture theory
Cultural globalization theory
Acculturation theory
Global and local consumer culture
Use of GCC and LCC in Consumer Behavior
Attitude toward GCC and LCC
Behavioral consequences of GCC and LCC Batra et al. (2000); Davvetas and Diamantopoulos (2016, 2018); Davvetas, Sichtmann, and
Managerial Applications of GCC and LCC
Consumer cultural positioning
Brand equity
Arnould and Thompson (2005, 2018); Slater (1997)
Appadurai (1996); Crane, Kawashima, and Kawasaki (2002); Holton (2000); Pieterse (2004);
Ritzer (2007); Tomlinson (1999)
Berry et al. (1989); LaFramboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993); Ryder, Alden, and Paulhus
(2000); Sam and Berry (2006); Schwartz and Unger (2017)
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999); Kjeldgaard and Askegaard (2006); Kipnis, Broderick, and
Demangeot (2013); Merz, He, and Alden (2008); Thompson and Arsel (2004)
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006); Bartsch, Riefler, and Diamantopoulos (2016); Cleveland
and Laroche (2007); Strizhakova and Coulter (2015); Tu, Khare, and Zhang (2012); Westjohn
et al. (2009); Zhou, Teng, and Poon (2008)
Diamantopoulos (2015); Dimofte, Johansson and Bagozzi (2010); Dimofte, Johansson and
Ronkainen (2008); Gurhan-Canli, Sarial-Abi, and Hayran (2018); Holt, Quelch, and Taylor
(2004); Özsomer (2012); Özsomer and Altaras (2008); Riefler (2012); Schuiling and Kapferer
(2004); Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003); Strizhakova and Coulter (2015); Strizhakova,
Coulter, and Price (2011); Swoboda, Pennemann, and Taube (2012); Swoboda and
Hirschmann (2016); Xie, Batra, and Peng (2015)
Akaka and Alden (2010); Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999); Hung, Li, and Belk (2007); Nijssen
and Douglas (2011); Okazaki, Mueller, and Taylor (2010); Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson
(2012)
Cayla and Arnould (2008); Holt (2004); Kumar and Steenkamp (2013); Steenkamp (2014, 2017)

(supply side) or the interplay between the demand and sup-
ply sides.
After 20 years of marketing research on GCC and LCC,
it is time to take stock. Extant research is vast, has dealt
with a variety of aspects of GCC and LCC, draws on dif-
ferent foundational literatures, and has appeared in publica-
tions for fields ranging from anthropology to international
marketing (Table 1). Researchers have often used different
labels for what are essentially the same constructs, leading
to confusion.
With these considerations in mind, the contribution of this
research is threefold. First, I organize and synthesize the rap-
idly growing body of research of GCC and LCC (Figure 1).
Second, I add new empirical marketing insights on GCC and
LCC by reanalyzing a massive global data set previously used
by Steenkamp and De Jong (2010), and by leveraging new data
on brand equity. Third, I identify important holes in our knowl-
edge of GCC and LCC and use them to develop several excit-
ing opportunities for future research.
The remainder of the article follows the flow outlined in
Figure 1. More specifically, I start by tracing the development
of GCC and LCC, elaborating on their roots in consumer
culture, cultural globalization, and acculturation theories.
This sets the context for an in-depth treatment of consumer
attitudes toward GCC (AGCC) and LCC (ALCC). Next, I turn to
their individual-level and national cultural correlates. The
discussion proceeds to behavioral consequences of GCC and
LCC. Do GCC and LCC really matter to consumers? The
focus then shifts from the demand side to the supply side.
I discuss managerial applications of GCC and LCC in brand
positioning and brand equity. The article concludes with areas
for future research.
Theoretical Foundations of GCC and LCC
Consumer Culture Theory
The idea of consumer culture has a broad, even all-embracing
quality (Arnould and Thompson 2018). It implies that in a
modern world, core identities are defined and oriented in
relation to consumption. Arnould and Thompson (2005,
p. 869) define consumer culture as “a social arrangement in
which the relations between lived culture and social
resources, and between meaningful ways of life and the sym-
bolic and material resources on which they depend, are
mediated through markets.”
Consumer culture theorists have highlighted several defin-
ing, interconnected characteristics of consumer culture. First,
consumer culture is about consumption. According to Slater
(1997, p. 8), consumer culture is “a culture of consumption”
(emphasis in the original). People embracing consumer culture
regard consumption as important and valuable in its own right
(Ritzer 2007, pp. 163–69). They attempt to add meaning to
their lives, to make collective sense of their environments, and
to orient their own experiences and lives through consumption
(Tomlinson 1999, p. 18). Second, consumer culture is not just
about the consumption of tangible products, but about anything
that can be “consumed,” including services, images, lifestyles,
and symbols (Arnould and Thompson 2005). In the literature,
Steenkamp
Theoretical Foundation
• Consumer • GCC
culture theory • LCC
• Cultural • Consumer responses
globalization to the forces of
theory globalism and
• Acculturation localism
theory
Figure 1. A framework for research on global and local consumer culture.
Notes: PBG ¼ perceived brand globalness; PLI ¼ perceived local iconness. The dotted arrows do not indicate a causal relation but show the flow of information
dissemination and sources of conceptual ideas. Topics for which this article presents new empirical insights are in italics.
these various consumption categories are commonly referred to
as “commodities.” Third, these commodities are “market-
made” (Arnould and Thompson 2005, p. 869), and their
consumption is mediated through markets. Fourth, consumer
culture is closely associated with the principles of modernity,
choice, individual freedom, and market relations (Slater 1997,
p. 8). All these characteristics underline that consumer culture
is of central importance to marketing (Alden, Steenkamp, and
Batra 1999).
In the not-too-distant past, consumer culture was over-
whelmingly, if not exclusively, local in content. However,
in the last decades, consumer culture has been increasingly
shaped by globalization processes. Tomlinson (1999,
p. 190) calls “localism” and “globalism” the “two axial
principles of our age,” while Arnould and Thompson
(2005) note that local consumer cultures are increasingly
interpenetrated by globalization forces. The world is an
increasingly interconnected place, and these interconnec-
tions influence individuals’ worldviews. These forces of
globalism collide—and have to be reconciled—with the
forces of localism that have been the defining feature for
consumers for centuries, if not millennia. In the spirit of
Arnould and Thompson’s (2005) definition of consumer
culture, I define global (local) consumer culture as a social
arrangement in which the relations between lived culture
and social resources, and between meaningful ways of life
and the symbolic and material resources on which they
depend, are globally (locally) conceived and are mediated
through deterritorialized, global (geographically anchored,
local) markets.
3
International Marketing
Consumer Behavior
• AGCC, ALCC
o Measurement
o Individual-level correlates
o National-cultural correlates
• Behavioral consequences of GCC, LCC
o AGCC, ALCC
o PBG, PLI
Managerial Applications
• Consumer cultural positioning
strategies
• Brand equity
Cultural Globalization Theory
Cultural globalization theory studies the responses to the joint
forces of globalism and localism largely at the macro level of
groups or societies (Pieterse 2004). Cultural globalization the-
orists study the cross-national transmission or diffusion of
media forms, symbols, lifestyles, and attitudes. They also focus
on the processes underlying such transmissions, the principal
actors, and possible consequences. One school of thought
within this literature argues that large numbers of people
around the world are assimilating into GCC (Holton 2000;
Pieterse 2004), substituting globally diffused behaviors and
preferences for those from their traditional, local cultures. Sup-
porting the globalization position, Hannerz (1990, p. 237) notes
that GCC is emerging because of “increasing interconnected-
ness of varied local cultures as well as through the development
of cultures without a clear anchorage in any one territory.”
Those arguing for assimilation further suggest that along
with the diffusion of market economies, increasingly sophisti-
cated technology and the spread of multinational corporations
have led to standardized brand images, mass advertising, and
“the sale of dreams of affluence, personal success and erotic
gratification through advertising and the culture industry of
Hollywood” (Holton 2000, p. 142).
A second possible response discussed in this literature is
localization, reflecting the desire to maintain one’s local con-
sumer culture and to generally reject influences perceived as
global. In line with this perspective, Inglehart and Baker (2000)
show that national cultures and values change in a path-
dependent way rather than converge toward each other.
Furthermore, despite the forces of globalism, local culture
4 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)
remains the central influence on consumer behavior and indi-
vidual identity. Many consumers prefer local consumption
imagery because they more easily identify with local lifestyles,
values, attitudes, and behaviors (Crane 2002).
A third proposed response, hybridization, or glocalization,
concerns a desire to embrace elements of global culture and to
integrate them into the local culture. Appadurai (1996) states
that global cultural forces tend to become indigenized in one
way or another. Echoing this position, Sandikci and Ger (2002)
argue that “modernization” for consumers does not mean glo-
bal culture assimilation. Rather “hybridity, creolization and
fusion . . . resonate postmodern plurality in a country currently
struggling to be modern” supporting the notion of “multiple
modernities” (Sandikci and Ger 2002, p. 465). In a similar vein,
Pieterse (2004, p. 59) argues for “hybridization,” and Friedman
(1995, p. 82), for “creolization.” Individuals can be global in
one consumer domain but local in another (Robertson 1992).
Consistent with this perspective, Belk (2000) reports that elite
consumers in Zimbabwe largely measure their consumption
“success” through reference to the more developed world in
general, and the United Kingdom and United States in partic-
ular. However, they also retain a strong local culture orienta-
tion with respect to food and music. Thus, their consumption
behaviors are global in some categories but not in others.
A fourth response to GCC is glalienation or cultural anomie.
This response has received little attention in the globalization
literature, which implicitly assumes that all consumers have
high cultural involvement, whether focused on GCC, LCC,
or both. However, cultural alienation is identified in the cul-
tural identification and adaptation literature (e.g., Oetting and
Beauvais 1991). The glalienation response concerns rejection
of all symbols of culture, be they global, hybrid, or local. It is
associated with low cultural identification, loss of identity, and
problems of well-being (Oetting and Beauvais 1991).
Acculturation Theory
Acculturation theory studies globalization and localization pro-
cesses at the micro level of individuals (Schwartz and Unger
2017). Acculturation refers to changes that individuals and
groups of people experience as a result of coming into contact
with another culture. In this article, the focus is on acculturation
as an individual-level phenomenon, also called psychological
acculturation. Intercultural encounters may lead to varying
degrees of individual-level change, such as newly learned
social skills; modified expectations, attitudes, and values;
and/or redefined cultural identities and self-identities (Ryder,
Alden, and Paulhus 2000). Acculturation models are often
applied to explain how individuals differ in their response to
new (“host”) cultures that they physically enter (e.g., immi-
grants). However, these models have also been used exten-
sively to understand how external forces that enter home
cultures affect the people already living there (e.g., exposure
of “native” peoples to colonizing cultures; Berry et al. 1989).
For this reason, the acculturation literature provides a rich
source of insight on potential responses by local consumers
to global consumption flows that enter their home cultures
through the mass media, travel, tourism, and other avenues.
An important issue in this literature is the effect of accul-
turation on one’s cultural identity. The unidimensional and
bidimensional models of acculturation are the most popular
frameworks for understanding how individuals respond to sec-
ondary cultural influences over the longer term (e.g., Flannery,
Reise, and Yu 2001; Ryder, Alden, and Paulhus 2000). The
unidimensional model specifies an individual’s response on a
single bipolar continuum, from cultural maintenance (of the old
culture) to assimilation (into the new culture), while the middle
ground is occupied by the bicultural (integration) option
(Ryder, Alden, and Paulhus 2000). A person is placed some-
where on this continuum, and the overriding question is “how
far [someone has] progressed (or regressed) on the assimilation
pathway” (Flannery, Reise, and Yu 2001, p. 1036).
The bidimensional model treats (old) cultural maintenance
and (new) cultural adaptation as two conceptually separate
dimensions, allowing identification with the new culture to
coexist alongside identification with the old culture. The most
influential bidimensional model is Berry’s framework (Berry
et al. 1989; Berry and Sam 1997), in which four alternative
acculturation responses are identified: assimilation (embra-
cing the new host culture and ultimately losing one’s home
culture identity), integration (both maintenance of one’s home
culture identity and participation in the new host culture),
separation (maintenance of home cultural symbols, values,
and behaviors and avoidance of cultural interaction with the
new host society), and marginalization (little desire either to
maintain the old home culture or to participate in the new host
culture). Note that the marginalization response concerns
rejection of all symbols of culture, be they global, hybrid,
or local, often as a result of “acculturative stress” (Ryder,
Alden, and Paulhus 2000, p. 53).
A third acculturation model calls for a fusion and integration
of the two cultures, creating a mixture and combination that not
only contains “the best” of the original cultures but also new
and unique elements that are atypical of both of them (Coleman
1995). This model is conceptually somewhat similar to the
hybridization/creolization notions in the cultural globalization
literature discussed previously.
What this diversity of acculturation models shows, impor-
tantly, is that when individuals from one culture come into
contact with another culture, assimilation into the dominant
culture is by no means the only possible outcome. Indeed,
LaFramboise, Coleman, and Gerton (1993) concluded their
review of models of “second-culture acquisition” by favoring
models that allow individuals to develop “bicultural
competence.” They discussed several models in the accultura-
tion literature that hypothesize that individuals can develop
responses to both cultures that allow them to identify with both,
one, or neither culture.
In synthesis, the review of the theoretical foundations of
GCC and LCC reveals four ideal types of consumer responses
to the forces of globalism and localism with broadly the same
meaning: (1) globalization/homogenization/ assimilation, (2)
Steenkamp
localization/separation/polarization, (3) glocalization/integra-
tion/hybridization/creolization/fusion, and (4) glalienation/
marginalization.
Consumers’ Attitudes Toward GCC and LCC
Measurement
Any analysis of the role that GCC and LCC play in the behavior
of consumers has to take into account consumers’ attitudes
toward these two constructs. Attitudes are of central impor-
tance in any behavioral analysis. They guide people’s thoughts,
feelings, and actions. Various marketing researchers have pro-
posed instruments for measuring AGCC or closely related con-
structs that might be regarded as proxies for AGCC (Bartsch,
Riefler, and Diamantopoulos 2016), such as susceptibility to
GCC (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008), global connectedness
(Strizhakova and Coulter 2015), and identification with the
global community (Westjohn et al. 2009).
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006) proposed a construct
called global consumption orientation. It is a bipolar measure
consistent with the unidimensional model of acculturation. The
negative pole of global consumption orientation is anchored on
embracing LCC, the positive pole is anchored on GCC, and the
middle ground is occupied by the hybrid option.
Tu, Khare, and Zhang (2012) developed an instrument to
measure both local and global identity. They found that a per-
son’s global and local identity are correlated. Yet the magni-
tude and direction of this correlation varied strongly, from a
low of .61 in one study to a high of .49 in another study. The
reason for the variation is not clear, but it could be due to heavy
reliance on convenience samples.
The most elaborate measurement instrument for AGCC,
called acculturation to global consumer culture, was developed
by Cleveland and Laroche (2007). Their 45-item scale consists
of seven factors: cosmopolitanism, exposure to marketing
activities of multinational firms, English language/exposure,
social interactions, global mass media exposure, openness to
and desire to emulate GCC, and self-identification with GCC.
While this scale casts a wide net, it combines factors that in
other research (e.g., Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006) are
treated as antecedents of AGCC (the first five factors) with
measures of AGCC per se (the last two factors).
With the exception of that of Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
(2006), these instruments rely on Likert-type response scales.
While rating scales are easy to use, they suffer from response-
style bias (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2001) and social desir-
ability bias (Steenkamp, De Jong, and Baumgartner 2010). This
approach can also give rise to common method bias because the
antecedents and consequences of AGCC are usually measured
with the same response scales.
Building on the work of Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
(2006), Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) introduced an instru-
ment for the measurement of AGCC and ALCC that differs from
previous ones in four respects. First, it is explicitly grounded in
the notion that consumer culture is about consumption of
5
Attitude Toward Global Consumer Culture (AGCC)
Negative Positive
Consumer Culture (ALCC)
Attitude Toward Local
Negative Glalienation Globalization
Positive Localization Glocalization
Figure 2. A typology of consumer responses to the joint forces of
global and local consumer culture.
market-mediated products, services, images, lifestyles, and
symbols (Arnould and Thompson 2005). The scale includes six
consumption domains central to consumer culture: lifestyle,
entertainment, home furnishings, foods, clothing, and brands.
Second, it specifies four response options for each consump-
tion domain. These response options are derived from cultural
globalization theory and acculturation theory. To illustrate, the
response options for the entertainment domain of consumption
are as follows:
 I enjoy entertainment that I think is popular in many
countries around the world more than traditional enter-
tainment that is popular in my own country.
 I enjoy traditional entertainment that is popular in my
own country as well as entertainment that I think is
popular in many countries around the world.
 I enjoy traditional entertainment that is popular in my
own country more than entertainment that I think is
popular in many countries around the world.
 I don’t enjoy most entertainment, whether it’s tradition-
ally popular in my own country or popular in many
countries around the world.
The first response option indicates preference for global
consumption alternatives (globalization), followed by prefer-
ence for combining global and local alternatives (glocaliza-
tion), preference for local alternatives (localization), and lack
of interest in the consumption domain regardless of whether the
alternatives are local or global (glalienation).
Third, they used a forced-choice format. For each of the six
consumption domains, the respondent was instructed to select
the one response option that most closely matched their pre-
ference. The forced-choice response format avoids issues of
response styles. It also reduces the biasing effects of socially
desirable responding as respondents “have to consider the
social desirability of all four elements [response categories],
which is more difficult than judging the social desirability of a
single element” (Triandis, Chen, and Chan 1998, p. 277).
Fourth, Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) conceptually link
the response options to underlying attitudes toward GCC and
LCC (Figure 2). The globalization response is hypothesized to
be characteristic for people who embrace GCC (i.e., have a
6 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)
positive AGCC) and reject LCC (i.e., have a negative ALCC).
The localization response is the characteristic response for the
opposite combination of attitudes: negative AGCC and positive
ALCC. Glocalization is the likely response for a person who
both has a positive AGCC and a positive ALCC, while glaliena-
tion is driven by a negative attitude toward both GCC and LCC.
Estimation of AGCC and ALCC Scores
Researchers using Likert-type measurement instruments derive
construct scores for AGCC and ALCC using either (weighted)
factor scores or (unweighted) summated scores. Such proce-
dures are less suitable for the categorical response scales
employed by Steenkamp and De Jong (2010). These authors
proposed a nominal item response theory (IRT) measurement
model. In that model, the probability that respondent i in coun-
try j, with latent values AGCCij and ALCCij, will respond to
consumption domain k (k ¼ 1, . . . , 6 in the Steenkamp and
De Jong measurement instrument) in nominal response cate-
gory c (c ¼ 1, . . . , 4) is given by the following equation:
expðZ ijkc Þ
PrðX ijk ¼ cÞ ¼ X ; ð1Þ
expðZ ijkh Þ
h
where
Zijkc ¼ xkc þ akc;1 AGCCij þ akc;2 ALCCij : ð2Þ
Zijkc can be regarded as the unobserved preference that
respondent i from country j has for response category c in the
context of consumption domain k. The parameter xkc indicates
a category response “easiness” parameter, with more positive
(negative) values being associated with a greater easiness
(greater difficulty) of the response category being chosen. The
parameters akc,1 and akc,2 refer to the discrimination parameter
for the underlying AGCC and ALCC, respectively. The easiness
and discrimination parameters are allowed to vary across items
and response categories.
To identify the model, Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) place
theory-based restrictions on the discrimination parameters.
Their theorizing dictates that for the globalization response,
a.,1 should be positive and a.,2 should be negative, because a
rise in AGCC (ALCC) should have a positive (negative) effect on
the tendency to opt for global consumption options only. For
the localization response, the opposite is true. For the glocali-
zation response, both a rise in AGCC and a rise in ALCC would
give rise to an increase in the likelihood of the response option.
Finally, with glalienation, both a rise in AGCC and a rise in
A LCC would negatively affect the odds of selecting the
response option.
Even though the sign of the discrimination parameters is
fixed, it is the magnitude of the discrimination parameters and
easiness parameters (which are freely estimated) that deter-
mines the shape of the probability surfaces in Equation 1. To
arrive at the probability of any particular response for a specific
item, it is necessary to take into account the discrimination and
easiness parameters for the focal response as well as for the
other three responses options (see Equations 1 and 2).
Some studies have used the Steenkamp and De Jong (2010)
items but instructed respondents to score each response option
on a Likert-type response scale. This approach can lead to
strange results. For example, Tu, Khare, and Zhang (2012,
Table 6) reported that higher endorsement of the localization
response was positively correlated with global identity and
negatively correlated with ethnocentrism. Moreover, scores
on the globalization and localization responses were correlated
at .48, whereas one would expect them to be negatively corre-
lated because they are diametrically opposed (Figure 2). On the
other hand, globalization and glocalization exhibited the larg-
est negative correlation (.57), which is surprising because
they share a preference for global alternatives. Yet the Steen-
kamp and De Jong model might be daunting for researchers
who are less familiar with IRT. If that is the case, I recommend
not using Likert scales but rather a simple coding scheme, at
least for AGCC. See the Appendix for details.
Quantifying Elements of Consumer Culture Theory
Consumer culture theory is descriptively rich, but insights are
mostly based on qualitative, ethnographic data (Arnould and
Thompson 2018). Thus, generalization across populations and
countries is difficult. For example, it is not clear whether each
consumption domain is equally diagnostic for people’s appre-
ciation for GCC or LCC. Perhaps people’s global and/or local
cultural attitudes do not matter for some domains but are
important for others. Is it is more difficult to embrace GCC
(or LCC) in some consumption domains than in others? For
example, food is often considered central to LCC (Özsomer
2012). This situation would suggest that it is difficult for a
person to be totally alienated from food and that cultural
responses that include local options (glocalization, localiza-
tion) are likely to be viable options for most people.
The IRT model developed by Steenkamp and De Jong
(2010) can be used to quantify the diagnosticity of consumption
domains for people’s attitudes toward GCC and LCC (by
examining the discrimination parameters) and to assess the
psychological barrier toward embracing any particular
response options for any given consumption domain (by exam-
ining the easiness parameters).
The following illustration uses IRT parameter estimates
obtained by Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) but neither
reported nor discussed in that article. These parameter esti-
mates are based on survey data from demographically diverse
samples of respondents in 28 nations in Western Europe (Aus-
tria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Ire-
land, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland), Central/Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hun-
gary, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Ukraine), Asia
(China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand), Latin America (Argentina,
Brazil), and North America (United States). The data were
collected by the global marketing research agencies GfK and
Kantar Worldpanel. A web survey was used in countries in
Steenkamp 7

Table 2. Item Parameter Estimates

Globalization Glocalization Localization Glalienation Average

Discrimination Parameters
AGCC
Entertainment 1.142 .853 .413 .550 .740
Furnishings 1.427 1.099 .645 .757 .982
Clothing 1.224 .823 1.027 1.436 1.128
Food .485 .485 .485 .485 .485
Lifestyle 1.074 .940 .960 1.223 1.049
Brands 1.022 1.079 .586 .629 .829
ALCC
Entertainment .538 .375 .820 .618 .588
Furnishings .581 .576 .891 1.196 .811
Clothing .707 .469 .994 .957 .782
Food .527 .510 1.027 .884 .737
Lifestyle .579 .731 1.349 .976 .909
Brands .562 .750 1.052 .784 .787
Easiness Parameters
Entertainment 1.286 .983 .322 .773
Furnishings 1.294 1.239 .286 .636
Clothing 1.674 .942 .008 .016
Food .778 1.931 .851 1.640
Lifestyle 1.588 .862 .459 .090
Brands 1.060 1.181 .482 .413
Average 1.280 1.190 .133 .457

Notes: All discrimination parameters are significant at p < .05. Average discrimination parameters are based on absolute values.

which the internet is widespread. In other countries, mall inter-
cepts were used, in which respondents either filled out the
questionnaire on laptops or completed a hard-copy version. The
total number of respondents was 13,112.
Diagnosticity of consumption domains. By evaluating the absolute
magnitude of the discrimination parameters, one can assess
which consumption domains are more strongly linked to AGCC
and/or ALCC. Table 2 shows that lifestyle and clothing are on
average most diagnostic for AGCC, while food is least diagnos-
tic, indicating that this consumption domain discriminates the
least between respondents varying on AGCC. The six consump-
tion domains have less variation in diagnosticity for ALCC, but
lifestyle scores highest and entertainment lowest. Taken across
AGCC and ALCC, lifestyle and clothing are the most diagnostic
consumption domains for capturing people’s AGCC and ALCC.
Table 2 further shows that food and entertainment are the least
diagnostic. This finding does not mean that they are not impor-
tant components of consumer culture, but rather that how peo-
ple respond to these items is not so strongly related to their
specific attitudes toward global and local consumer culture.
How easy is it to embrace forces of globalism and localism? The
easiness parameters are also reported in Table 2. Larger values
indicate that it is easier (more likely) to obtain the response in
question. One striking result is that glocalization, and to a lesser
degree localization, have larger easiness parameters than gla-
lienation and, even more so, globalization. This finding pro-
vides strong empirical support for the idea that many
consumers are reluctant to disassociate themselves from LCC.
Thus, LCC remains a vital cultural force in today’s world.
However, the finding that the easiness parameter for gloca-
lization is larger than the corresponding parameter for localiza-
tion in all consumption domains reveals a preference among
many consumers to include GCC elements in their behavior.
Given that GCC is still a recent phenomenon, this finding
provides compelling empirical evidence concerning its appeal.
Specific easiness parameters are also informative. For
example, the low parameter for glalienation and the high para-
meter for glocalization with respect to foods indicates that the
hurdle to show disinterest in food culture is high, whereas there
is great interest in combining local and global foods in one’s
consumption repertoire. This finding gives quantitative, gener-
alized evidence for the occurrence of glocalization responses in
foods, as identified in consumer culture theory research.
Furthermore, a consumer has to be extremely low on AGCC and
ALCC before being likely to indicate alienation from cultural
connotations with respect to food.
Probability surfaces. To get a complete picture of the probability
of any particular response for a specific consumption domain,
one needs to take both discrimination and easiness parameters
into account. Figure 3 plots the probability surfaces for life-
style—the most diagnostic consumption domain—and brands,
the domain that is of special importance to marketers. This
figure illustrates the substantive richness of the IRT model
parameters. It shows that even under extreme circumstances
(extremely high AGCC and extremely low ALCC), the probabil-
ity of selecting the globalization response is much higher for
8 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)

A: Lifestyle
Probability of Globalization Probability of Glocalization

1
.5
.5
0 2 0
−2 2
−2
0 0 0 0
2 −2 2 −2
AGCC ALCC AGCC ALCC
Probability of Localization Probability of Glalienation
1
1
.5
.5

0 0
−2 2 −2
0 0 0 2
0
2 −2 2 −2
AGCC ALCC AGCC ALCC

B: Brands
Probability of Globalization Probability of Glocalization

1
.5

.5

2 0
0 −2 2
−2 0
0 0 0
2 −2 2 −2
AGCC ALCC AGCC ALCC

Probability of Localization Probability of Glalienation

1 1

.5
.5

0
0 −2
−2 2 2
0 0
0 0
2 −2 2 −2
AGCC ALCC AGCC ALCC

Figure 3. Probability of giving a particular response to the forces of global and local culture for two consumption domains.

brands than for lifestyle. This response is due to the higher alternative is lower for brands than for lifestyle. This finding is
easiness parameter for brands. The psychological barrier that consistent with previous research documenting that global
consumers have to overcome to go exclusively for the global brands benefit not only from associations with GCC but also
Steenkamp 9

from quality and prestige associations (Özsomer 2012; Steen- materialistic than people with low ALCC and are environmen-
kamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). tally conscious.
With respect to the localization response, the response sur-
face for lifestyle is both steeper and elevated compared with
New insights. I use the aforementioned data set of Steenkamp
that for brands. Indeed, the discrimination parameters for life-
and De Jong (2010) to expand on previous insights in two ways.
style are larger in absolute magnitude, indicating a stronger
First, Steenkamp and De Jong did not provide information
effect of changes in AGCC and ALCC on the probability that a
about effect sizes. Which individual-level factors matter the
respondent opts for the local alternative. Furthermore, it is
most? I investigate this question by reporting the (bivariate)
considerably “easier” to choose the local alternative for life-
correlation between each construct and AGCC and ALCC. Note
style than for brands. Another interesting finding is for the
that the use of bivariate correlations to assess construct validity
glalienation response. Its response surface for brands is flatter
is common in psychology and consumer research (see Bearden,
(lower absolute magnitude of discrimination parameters) and
Netemeyer, and Haws [2011] for a wealth of examples). Sec-
elevated (larger easiness parameter), compared with that for
ond, I examine 12 variables not considered by Steenkamp and
lifestyle. This difference implies that the probability of disas-
De Jong (2010). These variables are the Big Five personality
sociation from brands is higher and is less influenced by atti-
traits and seven consumer traits: exploratory information seek-
tudes toward GCC and LCC.
ing, susceptibility to normative influences, generalized brand
loyalty, deal proneness, health consciousness, quality con-
Correlates of Consumer Attitudes Toward sciousness, and attitude toward advertising.1
The results of this new analysis are shown in Table 3.
GCC and LCC Because statistical significance is of limited usefulness with
Individual-Level Correlates such a large sample (a correlation of .017 is still significant
at p < .05), I only report results that exceed Cohen’s (1988)
Previous findings. Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006) found
cutoff of .10 for small effect size.
that high foreign mass media exposure, mass migration, and
Table 3 shows that consumer ethnocentrism exhibits the
materialism and low susceptibility to normative influences are
largest effect on AGCC. Over 10% of variance in AGCC across
associated with higher AGCC, whereas the converse holds for
thousands of consumers and many countries around the world
ALCC (recall that their measurement is bipolar). Nationalism,
can be explained by a person’s ethnocentrism. In my experi-
consumer ethnocentrism, the Big Five trait agreeableness, and
ence, this effect is strong and cannot be easily attributed to
prevention regulatory focus are positively associated with
common method variance because the measurement instru-
ALCC, and cosmopolitanism, the Big Five trait openness to
ments are different. Stimulation, tradition, conformity, and
experience, and promotion regulatory focus are positively asso-
consumer innovativeness also have substantial effect sizes (r
ciated with AGCC (Cleveland and Laroche 2007; Tu, Khare, and
 .20). Concerning the newly added variables, people high on
Zhang 2012; Westjohn et al. 2016; Westjohn, Singh, and Mag-
AGCC are more open to experience (a finding consistent with
nusson 2012).
that of Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson [2012]) and are higher
In the largest empirical study to date, Steenkamp and De
on an additional dimension of seeking new experiences
Jong (2010) regressed AGCC and ALCC on ten personal values
(exploratory information seeking) but also have a more nega-
(Schwartz 1992), five consumer traits, and several sociodemo-
tive attitude toward advertising. Although advertising is a main
graphic characteristics. These authors found that AGCC is posi-
conduit through which GCC is communicated (Alden, Steen-
tively related to the importance a person attaches to power,
kamp, and Batra 1999), people with high AGCC may consider
stimulation, and universalism values, while it is negatively
advertising bland and uninspiring, given their need for change
related to tradition and conformity. Furthermore, people with
and new stimuli. A cursory examination of ads aired on tele-
high AGCC are more materialistic and innovative and less eth-
vision gives credence to this explanation.
nocentric and nostalgic. The researchers also found relations
Sociodemographic characteristics usually explain little var-
with sociodemographic characteristics. The picture that
iance in consumer traits, which is unfortunate because they are
emerges is that people with high AGCC are younger and better
particularly useful for managers. Yet for AGCC, we find a strong
educated, looking for new experiences in their lives, and less
effect of age, as well as substantial effects of education and (to
beholden to the past, tradition, conformity, and economic xeno-
a lesser degree) social class. Information on age and education
phobia. This profile is consistent with the idea that GCC offers
alone explains 12.7% of global variance in AGCC.
the promise of modernity, progress, and a new, different, and
Consumer ethnocentrism also exhibits the largest effect size
more exciting future. In many respects, people with high AGCC
for ALCC; in fact, it has by far the largest effect size of all ALCC
can be regarded as the vanguard of society.
correlates. Tradition also plays a substantial role. Concerning
Steenkamp and De Jong (2010) further found that ALCC is
the newly added variables, people with high ALCC are more
positively associated with the importance given to tradition,
conformity, and security values and negatively associated with
the importance given to stimulation and self-direction values. 1
See Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares (2015) and Steenkamp, De Jong, and
People with high ALCC are older and more ethnocentric and Baumgartner (2010) for references to these scales.
10 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)

Table 3. Individual-Level Correlates of AGCC and ALCC Sociodemographic characteristics exhibit much weaker rela-
tions with ALCC than with AGCC. This finding suggests that
Type of Number Correlation Correlation
Construct Variable of Items with AGCC with ALCC
ALCC is much more diffused across sociodemographic groups
in society than AGCC is.
Personality
Openness to experience 6 .159
Conscientiousness 6
Extraversion 6 National-Cultural Correlates
Agreeableness 6 .104 Previous findings. Steenkamp and De Jong (2010, Figure 5) docu-
Neuroticism 6
mented that AGCC and ALCC do not only differ systematically
Personal Values
Power 4 between people but also differ systematically between coun-
Achievement 4 .146 tries. They regressed country means on AGCC and ALCC on the
Hedonism 2 .141 .145 two dimensions specified in Inglehart’s national-cultural
Stimulation 3 .203 .171 framework (Inglehart and Baker 2000; Inglehart and Wezel
Self-direction 5 .162 .182 2005): secular-rational versus traditional values, and self-
Universalism 8 expression versus survival values. Inglehart’s theory is
Benevolence 5
grounded in materialism and modernization theory, which
Tradition 5 .249 .208
Conformity 4 .200 .158 makes it especially relevant for studying GCC and LCC. After
Security 5 .105 all, materialism and modernization occupy a central position in
Consumer Traits both consumer culture theory and globalization theory
Consumer 4 .339 .338 (Arnould and Thompson 2018; Ritzer 2007). Steenkamp and
ethnocentrism De Jong found that stronger endorsement of secular-rational
Consumer 8 .237 .108 cultural values has a positive effect on the country’s average
innovativeness
score on AGCC and a negative effect on its average ALCC.
Materialism 6 .115 .105
Nostalgia 2 .198 .166 Furthermore, the higher a country scores on self-expression
Environmental 3 .111 values, the lower its average AGCC and ALCC.
consciousness
Exploratory information 1 .134 New insights. I expand on the Steenkamp and De Jong’s (2010)
seeking findings in two ways, paralleling what I have done for the
Susceptibility to 8 .162 individual-level analysis. I correlate country average scores
normative influences on AGCC and ALCC with their national-cultural scores, and I
Generalized brand 1 .128 add the national-cultural frameworks of Hofstede and Schwartz
loyalty
to my analysis. Hofstede’s (2001) framework is the most
Deal proneness 2
Health consciousness 3 .178 widely used operationalization of culture in international mar-
Quality consciousness 2 keting. Hofstede distinguishes five dimensions: power dis-
Attitude toward 2 .157 tance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and
advertising long-term orientation.
Sociodemographics Schwartz’s (1994) framework contains seven dimensions:
Age 1 .286 .145 harmony (fitting in with the environment), embeddedness (peo-
Gender 1
ple as embedded in the collective), hierarchy (legitimation of
Household size 1
Education 1 .224 .183 unequal distribution of power), mastery (exploitation of the
Social class 1 .148 natural or social environment), affective autonomy (pursuit
of positive experiences), intellectual autonomy (independent
Notes: All correlations are significant at p < .001. Only correlations with pursuit of own ideas), and egalitarianism (recognition of people
absolute value .10 are shown. Variables not included in Steenkamp and De
Jong (2010) are in italics. as moral equals). Schwartz further proposes that these seven
dimensions can be grouped into three bipolar dimensions:
autonomy versus embeddedness, harmony versus mastery, and
agreeable, a finding consistent with that of Westjohn, Singh,
hierarchy versus egalitarianism.
and Magnusson (2012). They are also more brand loyal, which
Table 4 reports the results of this correlational analysis.
is consistent with the profile of ALCC as people who tend to be
Correlations that exceed Cohen’s (1988) cutoff of .30 for
more risk averse and less likely to seek new experiences
medium effect size are reported.2 Countries that, on average,
(Baumgartner and Steenkamp 1996). The positive relation with
have a more positive AGCC are more long-term oriented (i.e.,
susceptibility to normative influences is in line with the find-
have lower preference for maintaining time-honored traditions
ings of Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006). Finally, ALCC is
positively correlated with health consciousness. This correla-
tion is surprising at first sight but is consistent with recent work 2
A small effect (r ¼ .10), would be “significant” at p ¼ .61, which makes little
by Gineikiene, Schlegelmilch, and Ruzeviciute (2016). sense. With 28 countries, Cohen’s cutoff of .30 has a p-value of .12.
Steenkamp
Table 4. National-Cultural Correlates of AGCC and ALCC
Cultural Framework Cultural Dimension
Hofstede (2001)
Power distance
Uncertainty avoidance
Individualism
Masculinity
Long-term orientation
Schwartz (1994): Individual dimensions
Harmony
Embeddedness
Hierarchy
Mastery
Affective autonomy
Intellectual autonomy
Egalitarianism
Schwartz (1994): Bipolar dimensions
Autonomy versus embeddedness
Harmony versus mastery
Hierarchy versus egalitarianism
Inglehart
Secular-rational versus traditional
Self-expressiveness versus survival
Notes: Only correlations with absolute value .30 shown. Correlations exceeding .32 are significant at p < .10. All R2 values except for AGCC regressed on
Schwartz’s bipolar dimensions are significant at p < .10. For Inglehart’s and Schwartz’s bipolar dimensions, the scores are keyed in the direction of the first pole.
For example, if a country scores high (low) on the secular-rational versus traditional dimension, this result means that the country embraces secular-rational
(traditional) values more strongly than traditional (secular-rational) values. Only the Inglehart dimensions were included in Steenkamp and De Jong (2010).
and norms and view societal change more positively). They are
also higher on intellectual autonomy and are more secular-
rational. Countries that have a more positive A LCC are
more hierarchical (refer to power distance, hierarchy, lower
egalitarianism) and collectivistic (embeddedness, lower indi-
vidualism). They are lower on harmony, autonomy (affective,
intellectual), and secular-rational and self-expressiveness val-
ues (i.e., embracing survival and traditional values). These
results generally have face validity, but results for harmony
are unexpected. I revisit this finding in the final section of
the article.
Across AGCC and ALCC, Inglehart’s secular-rational dimen-
sion is the single most diagnostic factor for explaining country
differences in consumer cultural attitudes. Countries that are
low on this dimension (“traditional” societies) emphasize the
importance of deference to authority, along with absolute stan-
dards and traditional family values. These societies have high
levels of national pride and take protectionist and nationalist
attitudes. Secular-rational societies’ values have the opposite
preferences on all these topics. Traditional societies’ national-
ism and protectionism are closely aligned with a focus on the
local element in one’s consumer culture, whereas secular-
rational societies’ greater openness is more closely aligned
with a focus on the global element of consumer culture.
I conclude the analysis of national-cultural correlates of
AGCC and ALCC by examining which framework has the great-
est predictive power. I regressed AGCC and ALCC on each set of
cultural dimensions separately. Table 4 provides R2 values and
adjusted R2 values. The R2 is an absolute measure of explained
11
Correlation with AGCC Correlation with ALCC R2/R2 adj., AGCC R2/R2 adj., ALCC
.276/.114 .466/.345
.475
.330
.383
.367/.145 .494/.317
.375 .378
.621
.409
.419
.405 .547
.426
.108/.004 .397/.322
.593
.310 .360
.412
.240/.179 .516/.477
.485 .612
-.413
variance, but in international marketing, where degrees of free-
dom at the country level are almost invariably modest at best,
parsimony is a key consideration. Thus, the adjusted R2 is the
more useful comparison metric.
This analysis yields several interesting insights. Even in an
absolute sense, the predictive power of Inglehart’s framework
for ALCC is higher than that of Hofstede or Schwartz, and this
result does not even take parsimony into account. For AGCC,
Schwartz’s seven-dimensional framework yields the highest
absolute predictive power, followed by Hofstede’s and Ingle-
hart’s. Schwartz’s bipolar dimensional framework performs the
worst, its R 2 not even being significant. However, when
degrees of freedom are taken into account, Inglehart’s frame-
work performs best. Inglehart’s framework is also preferable
for an additional statistical reason. By construction, the Ingle-
hart dimensions are orthogonal in his full sample, and in my
sample, they were also virtually uncorrelated (r ¼ .062). On the
other hand, Hofstede’s dimensions exhibited several high cor-
relations (in the range of .5 to .6). Correlations between
Schwartz’s seven dimensions were even worse: 12 correlations
exceeded .5, including four exceeding .7. Such high correla-
tions, especially in small samples, create severe multicollinear-
ity problems and thus make interpretation of individual
regression coefficients suspect. In sum, Inglehart’s framework
is most useful for cultural attitudes at the country level, from
both a conceptual and a statistical perspective.
Finally, for each cultural framework, national culture has
much greater predictive power for ALCC than for AGCC. The
consistency across frameworks suggests that this finding is not
12
a coincidence. National culture appears to be more of a factor
in explaining how much a country appreciates its own LCC
than what its attitude toward GCC is. This finding makes sense
because, conceptually, LCC is part of a country’s national cul-
ture. Although elements of GCC may be absorbed into various
national cultures, GCC and national culture are much farther
apart than LCC and national culture are.
Behavioral Consequences of GCC and LCC
Studying behavioral consequences of GCC and LCC has
been one of the most active research domains in interna-
tional marketing (see Table 1). Although some of this
research does not directly test effects of LCC and GCC, the
underlying theorizing relies heavily on LCC/GCC theory. A
person’s attitude toward GCC has a positive effect on the
person’s attitude toward, and purchase of, global brands
(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Riefler 2012; Strizha-
kova, Coulter, and Price 2011). Strizhakova and Coulter
(2015) contrasted local brand purchases with global brand
purchases and found that the higher a person’s AGCC, the
greater the proportion of global (versus local) brands in the
person’s purchase repertoire.
The concept of perceived brand globalness was introduced
by Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003). It is created through
consumer perceptions that the brand is marketed in multiple
countries and/or by using GCC symbols (such as brand names,
logos, visuals, themes, and endorsers associated with modern
lifestyle) in marketing communications and other elements of
the brand’s marketing strategy (Akaka and Alden 2010). A
large body of research has documented important conse-
quences associated with perceived brand globalness, including
higher perceived quality and prestige, association with global
citizenship, higher brand trust, affect, purchase likelihood, and
loyalty (Batra et al. 2000; Davvetas, Sichtmann, and Diaman-
topoulos 2015; Dimofte, Johansson, and Bagozzi 2010;
Dimofte, Johansson and Ronkainen 2008; Holt, Quelch, and
Taylor 2004; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Strizhakova,
Coulter, and Price 2011; Swoboda and Hirschmann 2016; Xie,
Batraf, and Peng 2015).
Research has further documented that local brands can
counter the threat posed by global brands by incorporating LCC
elements into their brand promise (Özsomer 2012; Schuiling
and Kapferer 2004; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Striz-
hakova and Coulter 2015). Successful local iconic brands have
built strong associations with local cultural values, heritage,
authenticity, national identity, and nostalgia for an imagined
past (“the good old days”). Although perceived local iconness
has a positive effect on behavioral outcomes such as purchase
likelihood, Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden (2003) and Xie, Batra,
and Peng (2015) found that the total effect of perceived brand
globalness on purchase likelihood is greater than that of per-
ceived local iconness.
Thus, LCC and GCC are compelling forms of cultural
authority. Strong evidence shows that many consumers take
local and global cultural considerations into account in their
Journal of International Marketing 27(1)
evaluation of brands and brand purchases. Firms can—and
do—use these insights in their marketing strategies.
Managerial Applications of GCC and LCC
Consumer Culture in Brand Positioning Strategies
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) proposed three types of
brand positioning strategies based on consumer culture. Global
consumer culture positioning (GCCP) is a positioning strategy
that associates the brand with global cultural meanings, reflects
global culture norms and identifiers (global village member-
ship, passport to global citizenship), portrays the brand as con-
sumed by people around the world in a setting that is
deterritorialized (could be anywhere, global connection hubs
or imagery), and/or depicts the brand as coming from nowhere
in particular and being consumed by globally recognized celeb-
rities or people from any or all cultures.
Local consumer culture positioning (LCCP) associates the
brand with local cultural meanings, reflects local culture
norms/identities, portrays the brand as consumed by local peo-
ple in the national culture, and/or depicts the brand as locally
produced for local people. Finally, foreign consumer culture
positioning (FCCP) positions the brand as symbolic of a spe-
cific foreign consumer culture; that is, the brand’s personality,
use occasion, and/or user group are associated with a foreign
culture. To the extent that a country has a globally favorable
image in the category (Japanese electronics, German cars,
French perfume), FCCP is closely aligned with GCCP because
these country stereotypes (Japanese inventiveness, German
craftsmanship, French elegance) have become part of a GCC
brand-building repertoire (Steenkamp 2017). Thus, I focus here
on GCCP and LCCP.
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) examined the use of
consumer culture positioning (CCP) strategies in television
advertising in seven countries in Asia, Europe, and North
America. Overall, LCCP was used in 59.0% of the advertise-
ments, versus 22.4% for GCCP (and 3.8% for FCCP). Only
14.8% of the advertisements did not use a dominant CCP,
attesting to CCP’s widespread use by firms. In addition, GCCP
is relatively more often used for newer product classes (e.g.,
high-tech durables [33.3%]) than for products that have deep
local cultural roots (e.g., foods [18.6%]).
Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) hypothesized that indi-
rect, image-oriented, soft-sell appeals are more suitable for
advertisements using GCCP than direct, strong, hard-sell mes-
sage arguments are, because soft-sell appeals would be more
similarly interpreted across countries. In line with this expecta-
tion, they found that GCCP advertisements use soft-sell appeals
more often than hard-sell appeals (56.3% vs. 43.7%). Okazaki,
Mueller, and Taylor (2010) tested Alden, Steenkamp, and
Batra’s assumption and found that GCCP advertisements using
soft-sell appeals are indeed perceived similarly across coun-
tries, specifically the United States and Japan. Yet, Okazaki,
Mueller, and Taylor also found that cross-national differences
in appreciation of hard-sell appeals were less than implicitly
Steenkamp
assumed by Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra. In addition, Oka-
zaki, Mueller, and Taylor reported that hard-sell appeals
received higher ratings on attitudes toward the ad and purchase
intention. The combination of these two findings can explain
why hard-sell appeals are still used by nearly 45% of GCCP
advertisements in the Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra study.
Nijssen and Douglas (2011), Westjohn, Singh, and Magnus-
son (2012), and Westjohn et al. (2016) studied which consu-
mers are most likely to respond favorably to advertisements
using GCCP or LCCP. Less open-minded, more ethnocentric
consumers who identify more strongly with their own country
and have a negative AGCC have a more positive attitude toward
ads using LCCP, whereas more open-minded, less ethnocentric
consumers with a more positive attitude toward GCC have a
more positive attitude toward GCCP ads. This finding is impor-
tant because attitude toward the ad acts as a mediator of adver-
tising effectiveness. These psychographic profiles are
consistent with results reported in Table 3. This result suggests
that people’s AGCC and ALCC can be used as indicators for how
they will respond to advertisements using these types of posi-
tioning. Given this insight and the fact that managers can most
easily take action based on sociodemographic information, we
can conclude that GCCP ads are likely to be most effective
when the brand’s target segment consists of younger, better
educated people from upper-middle and higher social classes,
whereas LCCP ads are most effective when the target segment
is mainly older and lower educated consumers.
As shown, perceived brand globalness has a greater effect
on purchase likelihood than perceived local iconness does. The
brand’s CCP positioning strategy is an important channel
through which the firm can influence these perceptions (Akaka
and Alden 2010). If a firm’s GCCP strategy is effective in
establishing perceptions of globalness as well as associations
with quality, prestige, and/or global identity, GCCP may over-
all be a more beneficial positioning strategy than LCCP. This
conclusion should be tempered by considering the characteris-
tics of the target segment. If the target segment has low AGCC
and high ALCC, a combination of attitudes more often found
among older, less educated consumers, LCCP is the more ben-
eficial positioning strategy.
Brand Equity
Consumer culture can be used to build strong brands (Cayla
and Arnould 2008; Holt 2004; Kumar and Steenkamp 2013).
Firms transfer cultural meanings from the culturally constituted
world via advertising and other marketing activities into their
brands. The centrality of GCC and LCC in consumer behavior
suggests that these cultural associations are an important source
of brand equity, provided that the cultural positioning is aligned
with consumers’ cultural attitudes. In general, one would
expect that equity of brands using GCCP (LCCP) is higher
among consumers who score high on AGCC (ALCC).
Yet little hard, quantitative evidence shows that consumer
culture affects brand equity. For that reason, I conducted an
initial study in collaboration with the global market research
13
agency Kantar Worldpanel. In the first wave, data were col-
lected on brand equity among a sample of British consumers
for 97 international brands in various consumer packaged
goods categories. Respondents evaluated up to four randomly
chosen brands on a 16-item brand equity measurement instru-
ment, which covers four components of brand equity: esteem,
differentiation, relevance, and energy (Lehmann, Keller, and
Farley 2008). Approximately 31 responses were obtained per
brand for a final sample of 611 respondents. The overall brand
equity score was obtained by averaging scores across the four
components. Eight weeks later, the AGCC/ALCC measurement
instrument was administered to the same respondents. Experts
from Kantar Worldpanel independently classified the position-
ing of each brand used in the United Kingdom as primarily
GCCP/FCCP, primarily LCCP, or no dominant CCP.
Results showed that GCCP/FCCP was the dominant CCP
strategy of 33.0% of these brands, while 43.3% used primarily
LCCP and 23.7% did not have a dominant CCP strategy. For
each brand, consumers’ brand equity score was regressed on
their AGCC and ALCC scores. For 30 brands, the effect of AGCC
and/or ALCC was significant (p < .05), indicating that a per-
son’s attitude toward consumer culture had significant effect on
the person’s brand equity score. The average explained var-
iance across these 30 brands was 17.3%, for a multiple correla-
tion of .415. According to Cohen (1988), this effect size is
medium to large, which attests to the importance of consumer
culture for building strong brands.
The regression coefficients for each of these 30 brands can
be found in the Web Appendix. For 83% of these brands, the
effects for AGCC and/or ALCC were broadly aligned with the
CCP used by the brand. For nine LCCP brands, a significant
positive effect of AGCC was found, and for five of these nine
brands, it was the only significant effect. Because these brands
are all sold in other countries as well, consumers may be aware
of their global reach, and their assessment of the brand’s equity
may be more affected by their AGCC than by their ALCC,
despite the LCCP used by these brands.
In sum, the brand equity analysis shows that the interplay
between the CCP used by the brand and consumers’ attitudes
toward consumer culture has an appreciable (medium to large)
effect on brand equity for roughly one-third of the international
brands in consumer packaged goods.
Marketing Strategy
I conclude the discussion of managerial applications of GCC
and LCC by bringing various core concepts together (Table 5).
The core process implicated by GCC is that astute use of GCCP
increases perceived brand globalness, which increases pur-
chase likelihood because of the brand’s associations with per-
ceived quality, prestige, and global citizenship. The
consumer’s relation with the brand is aspirational (Hung, Li,
and Belk 2007), especially in emerging markets, where global
brands signify modernity, the future, and dreams of abundance
(Batra et al. 2000). Global segments that are especially recep-
tive to GCCP and global brands are consumers with high AGCC
14 Journal of International Marketing 27(1)

Table 5. Brand Strategy Using Global or Local Consumer Culture

Element Using GCC Using LCC

Core process GCC LCC

” ”
GCCP LCCP
” ”
PBG PLI
” ”
Purchase likelihood Purchase likelihood
Key brand associations  Quality  Heritage
 Prestige  Authenticity
 Global citizenship  Nostalgia
 Global myth  Local cultural values
 Modernity, progress  Prestige
Consumer-brand relation Aspiration (especially in emerging markets) Identification
Target segments  High AGCC  Low ALCC
 Youth  Older, lower educated
 Elite  Rural
 Cosmopolitans  Ethnocentric, nationalistic
Marketing-mix strategy  Use of the same brand name worldwide  Consider using local brand name
 High degree of standardization of product,  High degree of adaptation of product, packaging,
packaging, pricing, distribution pricing, distribution

(the effect is likely to be even stronger if they also have low
ALCC), the youth segment, higher educated people, the global
elite, and cosmopolitans. The marketing strategy for these
brands can be fairly highly standardized. Because the target
segments are global in scope and values, and global imagery
and associations add to brand value, strong local adaptations
are not advisable and may even detract from brand appeal.
Managers leveraging LCC should opt for LCCP in their
advertising and marketing strategy and, if successful, have
imbued their brands with associations of heritage, authenticity,
nostalgia, and local values. The consumer relation with the
brand is likely one of identification (Hung, Li, and Belk
2007). The primary target segments for this strategy are people
with high ALCC (and ideally low AGGC) and older, less edu-
cated, and ethnocentric consumers, who are overrepresented in
rural areas. A successful marketing strategy for LCCP brands
requires extensive adaptation. If the brand is in fact sold around
the world, using a local brand name and possibly employing
translation and transliteration techniques should be considered.
Future Research Directions
Since Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (1999) introduced the con-
cept of GCC in the marketing literature, it has attracted con-
siderable research attention. Most research has either focused
on GCC and related constructs (GCCP, AGCC, perceived brand
globalness) or contrasted it to LCC and its related constructs
(LCCP, ALCC, and perceived local iconness). As this article has
shown, much has been achieved in the last 20 years. The field
has recognized GCC and LCC as important marketing con-
structs, and international marketing researchers have devel-
oped an impressive body of empirical evidence concerning
their importance to consumers and firms. Yet important
unresolved issues remain. I organize them around the three
themes (Figure 1): GCC/LCC theory, attitudes toward GCC
and LCC, and managerial use of GCC and LCC.
GCC and LCC Theory
Currently, GCC is dominated by Western cultural symbols and
values. How does GCC change if more people from different
countries, such as India, China, or Brazil, are exposed to and
become participants in GCC? This change in perspective is
what Iwabuchi (2000, p. 269) calls “the shift from a Western
gaze to a global gaze.” The concept of GCC itself could be
further unpacked. It is customary to talk about GCC in singular.
But perhaps instead of having one single GCC, the world has
multiple GCCs—such as a global youth consumer culture and a
global elite consumer culture—that operate fairly indepen-
dently of each other. While few would dispute that global elites
and global youth have different outlooks, should their cultures
be regarded as subcultures under an all-encompassing GCC
umbrella, or should GCC be broken up into these subcultures?
The issue is analogous to the question of whether a nation
has an overarching national culture that subsumes subcultures,
or whether the subcultures are so strong that it is not mean-
ingful to speak of a national culture. Most international mar-
keting researchers would agree that national cultures exist and
affect market behavior. The wealth of empirical evidence doc-
umenting national cultural effects attests to this view. National
cultural values, norms, and beliefs are instilled in people
through institutions such as schools, churches, and other orga-
nizations from early childhood on (Hofstede 2001). Because
GCC lacks such powerful cultural transmission institutions,
perhaps the impact of the overall GCC relative to GCC sub-
cultures is less prominent. This possibility does not invalidate
Steenkamp
the importance of GCC; rather, it points to the need for future
research to reach an even more nuanced view of the content of
GCC across different global segments.
In the cultural globalization and acculturation literatures, the
glocalization response is less precisely defined than the globa-
lization and localization responses are. Broadly, scholars agree
that it involves combinations of local and global consumer
culture within one person. The literature is less clear on the
exact nature of such hybrid combinations. A consumer can
have separate local and global cultural frameworks and alter-
nate between them, depending on the circumstances (LaFram-
boise, Coleman, and Gerton 1993). Alternatively, the consumer
may integrate elements of GCC into the LCC (or vice versa;
Belk 2000). Thirdly, the consumer may fuse LCC and GCC,
creating new and unique elements that are atypical of both
(Coleman 1995; Sandikci and Ger 2002). These alternative
modes of glocalization are related but have subtle differences.
Future research should investigate whether alternative glocali-
zation responses can be fruitfully separated and underlying
processes and outcomes better understood, particularly in terms
of consumer responses to global cultural flows. Moreover,
future research should provide more guidance to managers on
how to combine GCCP and LCCP in their branding strategies.
Glalienation has received the least attention in the literature.
This limited attention would be understandable if glalienation
applied to a tiny minority of consumers. However, in the Steen-
kamp and De Jong (2010) sample, glalienation was the domi-
nant response for one of seven respondents. That proportion is
hardly negligible. Why are these people alienated from con-
sumer culture? Is it because they base their product purchase
decisions on functional performance and objective attributes?
Are they anti-materialists who reject the modern consumption
society and opt for voluntary simplicity? Are they economi-
cally so marginalized that consumer culture has little meaning
to them? Is glalienation a socially sanctioned response in post-
modern societies? The reason for glalienation likely varies
between people, but it is important to study this reaction to the
forces of globalism and localism.
In marketing, consumer culture research is mostly qualita-
tive in scope (Arnould and Thompson 2005, 2018). While
descriptively rich, this type of research makes it challenging
to derive conclusions that are generalizable to an entire popu-
lation, let alone to draw conclusions that apply across coun-
tries. Yet, international marketers are keenly interested in
establishing cross-national generalizations and boundary con-
ditions. As shown, the IRT model of Steenkamp and De Jong
(2010) can be used to quantify key aspects of consumer culture
theory. Model parameters can be estimated for groups of coun-
tries, such as developed versus emerging markets, to make
international comparisons of specific consumption domains.
This type of analysis deepens our understanding of the inter-
relations between consumer culture and consumption on an
international and generalizable basis. These quantitative results
could in turn stimulate qualitative studies of specific consump-
tion domains and countries.
15
Attitudes Toward GCC and LCC
In this article, I have treated constructs such as susceptibil-
ity to GCC (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008), global connect-
edness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2015), identification with
the global community (Westjohn et al. 2009), global con-
sumption orientation (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra (2006),
acculturation to global consumer culture (Cleveland and
Laroche 2007), global identity (Tu, Khare, and Zhang
(2011), and attitude toward global products (Steenkamp and
De Jong 2010) as proxies for AGCC, based on the construct
content and measurement, the similarity of their relations
with other constructs, and their close association with GCC
theory. However, other researchers may disagree with these
choices. Future research would benefit from a rigorous anal-
ysis of the convergent validity of these constructs and
whether they behave similarly in nomological analyses.
Given the importance of AGCC in international marketing,
this issue requires urgent attention.
Extending current cross-sectional research on AGCC and
ALCC by studying temporal dynamics would be worthwhile.
Is the negative effect of age on AGCC a cohort effect or the
effect of aging (Steenkamp and Maydeu-Olivares 2015)? What
is the effect of current pushback against globalization on con-
sumer attitudes? Does this change in trajectory differ between
consumer groups or countries? If so, what underlies these dif-
ferences? Answering these questions requires obtaining
repeated measurements of AGCC and ALCC for the same people
over a prolonged period of time.
By and large, the literature presents a coherent profile of
AGCC and ALCC in terms of personality traits, personal val-
ues, consumer traits, and sociodemographics at the individ-
ual level, and in terms of national culture at the country
level. But at least two findings need further attention. Why
does country-level AGCC (ALCC) exhibit a high positive
(negative) correlation of .375 (.378) with the national-
cultural dimension of harmony? Previously, authors have
noted that environmentalism has strong overtones of uni-
versalism (Tomlinson 1999, p. 77), but why would envir-
onmentalism be inimical to LCC? Future research should
examine this situation in depth. Perhaps GCC is seen as a
unifying, harmonious force in an increasingly politically
fractured world. If so, can multinationals use this view to
their advantage? Unilever bets heavily on the future of
“purpose branding” (Faber 2018). Can global unity and har-
mony be a “purpose”? Second, national culture has much
lower explanatory power for AGCC than for ALCC. Is LCC
more closely tied to national culture? Which country-level
factors do a better job of predicting AGCC?
As highlighted herein, a large body of research has docu-
mented the behavioral consequences of AGCC and ALCC. Most
of these findings are based on self-stated intentions and beha-
vior. Thus, the incremental contribution of another such study
may be limited. Future research should link GCC and LCC to
actual behavior, which is the next frontier in research on the
behavioral consequences of these two constructs.
16
Managerial Use of GCC and LCC
To what extent is the attractiveness of GCCP affected by
economic and political events? In recent years, globalization
has been under attack from various sides. One would intui-
tively assume that this situation will make LCC-based strate-
gies more attractive, but perhaps AGCC is much more resilient
to political developments than one may assume. After all,
these various anti-globalization developments have also gen-
erated strong counterreactions in those same countries. If the
move away from GCC is a broad-based phenomenon, does
perceived brand globalness become a liability, and should
multinational corporations try to reposition their global
brands as icons of local culture? How can they do that, and
would such efforts be believable?
International marketing has devoted more effort to studying
GCC and LCC in consumer behavior than in firm strategy
(Table 1). The contribution of consumer culture to brand equity
remains underexplored. An initial focus on the demand side
would make sense. After all, why should companies bother to
study consumer culture if it does not affect consumer behavior?
However, as companies expect ever more accountability from
their brand managers, showing the impact of cultural marketing
strategies on building strong brands and quantifiably higher
brand equity is a priority (Steenkamp 2017). International mar-
keting researchers could show them the way.
In sum, many unresolved issues await future research,
ensuring that GCC will remain an important topic for interna-
tional marketing researchers for many years to come.
Appendix. A Unit-Weighting Alternative to
Steenkamp and De Jong’s (2010) Item
Response Theory Model
The IRT model proposed by Steenkamp and De Jong (2010)
yields precise estimation and rich insights into response pat-
terns for individual consumption domains. However, it is also
psychometrically complex, and IRT models are not yet widely
diffused in international marketing. A simpler model is one that
omits the easiness parameter and restricts all discrimination
parameters to be either 1 or þ1. This model is akin to a
unit-weighting model underlying Cronbach’s alpha. Unit
weighting can be achieved by applying the following coding
scheme to the item responses:
AGCC ALCC
Globalization response þ1 1
Glocalization response þ1 þ1
Localization response 1 þ1
Glalienation response 1 1
Add the scores on AGCC and on ALCC across the items, and
divide them by the number of items. (Dividing the sum score by
the total number of items is not necessary, but it facilitates
comparison of scores between studies if different studies use
Journal of International Marketing 27(1)
different numbers of items.) This method yields a score on both
constructs between 1 and þ1. To illustrate, if a respondent
gives four glocalization responses and two localization
responses, the respondent’s ALCC score is ([4  (þ1)] þ
[2  (þ1)]) / 6 ¼ 1, and the respondent’s AGCC score is
([4  (þ1)] þ [2  (1)]) / 6 ¼ .33.
To assess the validity of this simple solution, I turned to the
large sample (N ¼ 13,112) of Steenkamp and De Jong (2010). I
calculated respondents’ unweighted scores using their survey
responses, correlated the unweighted scores with the IRT
scores, and then calculated the correlations between the
individual-level correlates and unweighted AGCC and ALCC
scores. The comparison is focused on correlations with con-
structs for which r > .10 in either the unweighted scores, the
IRT scores, or both.
For AGCC, the results are extremely close. The correlation
between the unweighted scores and the IRT scores was .935,
and the correlations with personal values, consumer traits, and
sociodemographic characteristics were similar. The
unweighted scores exhibited an average downward bias of only
1.5%. On the other hand, the results for ALCC were less satis-
factory. The correlation between the unweighted scores and the
IRT scores was only .836. The correlations with the individual-
level variables were also less similar. The unweighted scores
exhibited an average downward bias of over 25%. The differ-
ences were most pronounced for the consumer traits and socio-
demographics. For example, for consumer ethnocentrism, the
correlation declined from .338 to .156, while for age, the cor-
relation declined from .154 to .052.
In sum, these results suggest that the unit-weighting model
is a viable alternative for the more advanced IRT model for
AGCC, but its use for ALCC is not recommended.
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges the JIM review team for encour-
agement and constructive comments.
Associate Editor
Kelly Hewett served as associate editor for this article.
References
Akaka, Melissa A., and Dana L. Alden (2010), “Global Brand
Positioning and Perceptions,” International Journal of Adver-
tising, 29 (1), 37–56.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra
(1999), “Brand Positioning Through Advertising in Asia, North
America, and Europe: The Role of Global Consumer Culture,”
Journal of Marketing, 63 (1), 75–87.
Alden, Dana L., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Rajeev Batra
(2006), “Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace Globalization:
Structure, Antecedents, and Consequences,” International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 227–39.
Appadurai, Arjun (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimen-
sions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Steenkamp
Arnould, Eric J., and Craig J. Thompson (2005), “Consumer Culture
Theory (CCT): Twenty Years of Research,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 31 (4), 868–83.
Arnould Eric, J. and Craig J. Thompson, eds. (2018), Consumer Cul-
ture Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bartsch, Fabian, Petra Riefler, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos
(2016), “A Taxonomy and Review of Positive Consumer Disposi-
tions Toward Foreign Countries and Globalization,” Journal of
International Marketing, 24 (1), 82–110.
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatraman Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, Jan-
Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000), “Effects
of Brand Local/Non-Local Origin on Consumer Attitudes,” Jour-
nal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83–95.
Baumgartner, Hans, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (1996),
“Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualization and
Measurement,” International Journal of Research in Marketing,
13 (2), 121–37.
Baumgartner, Hans, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2001),
“Response Styles in Marketing Research: A Cross-National
Investigation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), 143–56.
Bearden, William O., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Kelly L. Haws
(2011), Handbook of Marketing Scales, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Belk, Russell W. (2000), “Consumption Patterns o the New Elite in
Zimbabwe,” in Marketing Contributions to Democratization and
Socioeconomic Development: Proceedings of the 25th Macromar-
keting Conference Clifford L. Shultz II, and Bruno Grbac, eds.
Lovran, Croatia: Macromarketing Society, 120–37.
Berry, John W., U. Kim, S. Power, M. Young, and M. Bujaki (1989),
“Acculturation Attitudes in Plural Societies,” Applied Psychology,
38 (2), 185–206.
Berry, John W., and D.L. Sam (1997), “Acculturation and Adapta-
tion,”in Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 3, Social
Behavior and Applications 2nd ed., John W. Berry, Marshall H.
Segall and Kagitçibasi Cigdem, eds. Boston: Allyn and Bacon,
291–326.
Cayla, Julien, and Eric J. Arnould (2008), “A Cultural Approach to
Branding in the Global Marketplace,” Journal of International
Marketing, 16 (4), 86–112.
Cleveland, Mark, and Michel Laroche (2007), “Acculturation to the
Global Consumer Culture: Scale Development and Research Para-
digm,” Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249–59.
Cohen, Jacob (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Coleman, Hardin L.K. (1995), “Strategies for Coping with Cultural
Diversity,” The Counseling Psychologist, 23 (4), 722–40.
Crane, Diana (2002), “Culture and Globalization,” in Global Culture:
Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization, Diana Crane, Nobuko
Kawashima and Kenichi Kawasaki, eds. New York: Routledge,
1–25.
Crane, Diana, Nobuko Kawashima and Kenichi Kawasaki, eds.
(2002), Global Culture: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization.
New York: Routledge.
Davvetas, Vasileios, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2016), “How
Product Category Shapes Preferences Toward Global and Local
17
Brands: A Schema Theory Perspective,” Journal of International
Marketing, 24 (4), 61–81.
Davvetas, Vasileios, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2018),
“‘Should I Have Bought the Other One?’: Experiencing Regret
in Global Versus Local Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of
International Marketing, 26 (2), 1–21.
Davvetas, Vasileios, Christina Sichtmann, and Adamantios
Diamantopoulos (2015), “The Impact of Perceived Brand Global-
ness on Consumers’ Willingness to Pay,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 32 (4), 431–34.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Richard P. Bagozzi
(2010), “Global Brands in the United States: How Consumer Eth-
nicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect,” Journal of International
Marketing, 18 (3), 81–106.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka A. Ronkainen
(2008), “Cognitive and Affective Reactions of U.S. Consumers to
Global Brands,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 113–35.
Faber, Hanneke (2018), “The Brand Manager Is Dead . . . Long Live
the Brand Activist,” (September 13), https://www.linkedin.com/
pulse/brand-manager-deadlong-live-activist-hanneke-faber-1e/.
Flannery, W. Peter, Steven P. Reise, and Yu Jiajuan (2001), “An
Empirical Comparison of Acculturation Models,” Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27 (8), 1035–45.
Friedman, Jonathan (1995), “Global Systems, Globalization and the
Parameters of Modernity,” in Global Modernities, Mike
Featherstone, Scott Lash and Roland Robertson, eds. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 69–90.
Gineikiene, Justina, Bodo B. Schlegelmilch, and Ruta Ruzeviciute
(2016), “Our Apples Are Healthier Than Your Apples: Decipher-
ing the Healthiness Bias for Domestic and Foreign Products,”
Journal of International Marketing, 24 (2), 80–99.
Gurhan-Canli, Zeynep, Gulen Sarıal-Abi, and Ceren Hayran (2018),
“Consumers and Brands Across the Globe: Research Synthesis and
New Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (1),
96–117.
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), “Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture,”
Theory, Culture & Society, 7 (2/3), 237–51.
Hofstede, Geert (2001), Culture’s Consequences, 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Holt, Douglas B. (2004), How Brands Become Icons. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Holt, Douglas B., John A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor (2004), “How
Global Brands Compete,” Harvard Business Review, 82 (9),
68–75.
Holton, Robert (2000), “Globalization’s Cultural Consequences,”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
570 (1), 140–52.
Hu, Fred, and Michael Spence (2017), “Why Globalization Stalled,”
Foreign Affairs, 96 (4), 54–63.
Hung, Kineta H., Stella Yiyan Li, and Russell W. Belk (2007), “Glocal
Understandings: Female Readers’ Perceptions of the New Woman
in Chinese Advertising,” Journal of International Business Stud-
ies, 38 (6), 1034–51.
Inglehart, Ronald, and Wayne E. Baker (2000), “Modernization, Cul-
tural Change and the Persistence of Traditional Values,” American
Sociological Review, 65 (1), 19–51.
18
Inglehart, Ronald, and Christian Welzel (2005), Modernization, Cul-
tural Change, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Iwabuchi, Koichi (2000), “From Western Gaze to Global Gaze,” in
Global Culture: Media, Arts, Policy and Globalization, Diana
Crane, Nobuko Kawashima and Kenichi Kawasaki, eds. New
York: Routledge, 256–73.
Kipnis, Eva, Amanda J. Broderick, and Catherine Demangeot (2013),
“Consumer Multiculturation: Consequences of Multi-cultural
Identification for Brand Knowledge,” Consumption Markets &
Culture, 17 (3), 231–53.
Kjeldgaard, Dannie, and Soren Askegaard (2006), “The Glocalization
of Youth Culture: The Global Youth Segment as Structures of
Common Difference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (2),
231–47.
Kumar, Nirmalya, and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2013), Brand
Breakout: How Emerging Market Brands Will Go Global. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
LaFramboise, Teresa, Hardin L.K. Coleman, and Jennifer Gerton
(1993), “Psychological Impact of Biculturalism: Evidence and
Theory,” Psychological Bulletin, 114 (3), 395–412.
Lehmann, Donald R., Kevin L. Keller, and John U. Farley (2008),
“The Structure of Survey-Based Brand Metrics,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 16 (4), 29–56.
Merz, Michael A., He Yi, and Dana L. Alden (2008), “A Categoriza-
tion Approach to Analyzing the Global Consumer Culture
Debate,” International Marketing Review, 25 (2), 166–82.
Nijssen, Edwin J., and Susan P. Douglas (2011), “Consumer World-
Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning in Adver-
tising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local
Positioning,” Journal of International Marketing, 19 (3), 113–33.
Oetting, E.R., and Fred Beauvais (1991), “Orthogonal Cultural Iden-
tification Theory: The Cultural Identification of Minority
Adolescents,” International Journal of the Addictions, 25 (5A/
6A), 655–85.
Okazaki, Shintaro, Barbara Mueller, and Charles R. Taylor (2010),
“Global Consumer Culture Positioning: Testing Perceptions of
Soft-Sell and Hard-Sell Advertising Appeals Between US and
Japanese Consumers,” Journal of International Marketing, 18
(2), 20–34.
Özsomer, Ayşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and Local
Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local
Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 12 (2), 72–95.
Özsomer, Ayşegül, and Selin Altaras (2008), “Global Brand Purchase
Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis and an Integrated Conceptual
Framework,” Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 1–28.
Pieterse, Jan N. (2004), Globalization & Culture. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield.
Riefler, Petra (2012), “Why Consumers Do (Not) Like Global Brands:
The Role of Globalization Attitude, GCO, and Global Brand Ori-
gin,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 25–34.
Ritzer, George (2007), The Globalization of Nothing 2. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Robertson, Roland (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global
Culture. London: SAGE Publications.
Journal of International Marketing 27(1)
Ryder, Andrew G., Lynn E. Alden, and Delroy L. Paulhus (2000), “Is
Acculturation Unidimensional or Bidimensional? A Head-to-Head
Comparison in the Prediction of Personality, Self-Identity, and
Adjustment,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79
(1), 49–65.
Sam, David L. and John W. Berry, eds. (2006), The Cambridge Hand-
book of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Sandikci, Özlem, and Güliz Ger (2002), “In-Between Modernities and
Postmodernities: Theorizing Turkish Consumptionscape,” in
Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Susan Broniarczyk
and Kent Nakamoto, eds. Valdosta, GA: Association for Consumer
Research, 465–70.
Schuiling, Isabelle, and Jean-Noel Kapferer (2004), “Real Differences
Between Local and International Brands: Strategic Implications for
International Marketers,” Journal of International Marketing, 12
(4), 97–112.
Schwartz, Seth J. and Jennifer Unger (2017), The Oxford Handbook of
Acculturation and Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1992), “Universals in the Content and Structure
of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20
Countries,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol.
25, Mark Zanna, ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1–65.
Schwartz, Shalom H. (1994), “Beyond Individualism/Collectivism:
New Cultural Dimensions of Value,” in Individualism and Collec-
tivism: Theory, Method, and Applications, Uichol Kim, Harry C.
Triandis, Çigdem Kagitçibasi, Sang-Chin Choi and Gene Yoon,
eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 85–119.
Slater, Don (1997), Consumer Culture & Modernity. Cambridge, UK:
Polity.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2014), “How Global Brands Create
Firm Value: The 4V Model,” International Marketing Review, 31
(1), 5–29.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2017), Global Brand Strategy:
World-Wise Marketing in the Age of Branding. New York: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana Alden (2003),
“How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates Brand Value,” Journal
of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53–65.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., and Martijn G. de Jong (2010), “A
Global Investigation into the Constellation of Consumer Attitudes
Toward Global and Local Products,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (6),
18–40.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Martijn G. de Jong, and Hans
Baumgartner (2010) “Socially Desirable Response Tendencies in
Survey Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (2),
199–214.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., and Alberto Maydeu-Olivares (2015),
“Stability and Change in Consumer Traits: Evidence from a
Twelve-Year Longitudinal Study, 2002–2013,” Journal of Market-
ing Research, 52 (3), 287–308.
Strizhakova, Yuliya, and Robin A. Coulter (2015), “Drivers of Local
Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Approach,”
Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 1–22.
Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda L. Price (2011),
“Branding in a Global Marketplace: The Mediating Effects of
Steenkamp
Quality and Self-Identity Brand Signals,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 28 (4), 342–51.
Swoboda, Bernhard, and Johannes Hirschmann (2016), “Does Being
Perceived as Global Pay Off? An Analysis of Leading Foreign and
Domestic MNCs in India, Japan, and the United States,” Journal of
International Marketing, 24 (3), 1–30.
Swoboda, Bernhard, Karin Pennemann, and Markus Taube (2012),
“The Effects of Perceived Brand Globalness and Perceived Brand
Localness in China: Empirical Evidence on Western, Asian, and
Domestic Retailers,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (4),
72–95.
Thompson, Craig J., and Zeynep Arsel (2004), “The Starbucks
Brandscape and Consumers’ (Anticorporate) Experiences
of Glocalization,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3),
631–42.
Tomlinson, John (1999), Globalization and Culture. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Triandis, Harry C., Xiao P. Chen, and Darius K. S. Chan (1998),
“Scenarios for the Measurement of Collectivism and Individualism,”
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29 (2), 275–89.
Tu, Lingjiang, Adwait Khare, and Yinlong Zhang (2012), “A Short
8-Item Scale for Measuring Consumers’ Local–Global
19
Identity,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29
(1), 35–42.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark Arnold, Peter Magnusson, and Kristy
Reynolds (2016), “The Influence of Regulatory Focus on Global
Consumption Orientation and Preference for Global Versus Local
Consumer Culture Positioning,” Journal of International Market-
ing, 24 (2), 22–39.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark Arnold, Peter Magnusson, Srdan
Zdravkovic, and Joyce Xin Zhou (2009), “Technology Readiness
and Usage: A Global-Identity Perspective,” Journal of the Acad-
emy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 250–65.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson (2012),
“Responsiveness to Global and Local Consumer Culture Position-
ing: A Personality and Collective Identity Perspective,” Journal of
International Marketing, 20 (1), 58–73.
Xie, Yi, Rajeev Batra, and Siqing Peng (2015) “An Extended Model
of Preference Formation Between Global and Local Brands: The
Roles of Identity Expressiveness, Trust, and Affect,” Journal of
International Marketing, 23 (1), 50–71.
Zhou, Lianxi, Lefa Teng, and Patrick S. Poon (2008), “Susceptibility
to Global Consumer Culture: A Three-Dimensional Scale,” Psy-
chology and Marketing, 25 (4), 336–51.