A Taxonomy and Review of Positive Consumer Dispositions Toward Foreign Countries and Globalization

1
© 2015, American Marketing Association

Journal of International Marketing
PrePrint, Unedited
All rights reserved. Cannot be reprinted without the express
permission of the American Marketing Association.
A taxonomy and review of positive consumer dispositions toward
foreign countries and globalization
Fabian Bartsch
Department of International Marketing
University of Vienna, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, 1090 Vienna, Austria
tel: +43 (1) 4277 38039, fax: + 43 (1) 4277 838039,
e-mail: fabian.bartsch@univie.ac.at
Petra Riefler
tel: +43 (1) 4277 38037, fax: + 43 (1) 4277 838037,
e-mail: petra.riefler@univie.ac.at
Adamantios Diamantopoulos
tel: +43 (1) 4277 38031, fax: + 43 (1) 4277 138032,
e-mail: adamantios.diamantopoulos@univie.ac.at
16 December 2015
2
Abstract
International marketing research has shown vivid interest in consumers’ positive
dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization. Motivated by the aim to
segment international consumer markets, the literature has introduced and adopted a
plethora of constructs and measurement instruments to capture such dispositions.
However, the current state of literature is problematic because of an unsorted range of
constructs with overlapping conceptualizations, diverse operationalizations, and
fragmented empirical findings regarding their impact on consumer responses. This
makes an informed choice on which construct(s) to employ in substantive research
(and why) extremely difficult. This article aims to advance the international marketing
literature by (a) developing a conceptual taxonomy of positive consumer dispositions
highlighting their similarities and unique features, (b) undertaking a comprehensive
review of the relevant conceptualizations and operationalizations, and (c) providing
guidance for future research on positive dispositions, including antecedents, response
variables, potential mediating and moderating influences. To move substantive
research in this field further, this article also proposes a research framework
comprising antecedents, causal sequences of dispositions, effects on consumer
response variables, and potential boundary conditions.
Keywords: International market segmentation, positive dispositions, foreign countries,
globalization, literature review, taxonomy

3
International marketing researchers have shown vivid interest in consumers’ dispositions,
notably, identities, orientations, beliefs, and attitudes toward foreign countries and
globalization. The aim is to better explain consumer perceptions of and preferences for
domestic, foreign, and global products in increasingly globalized markets. Such knowledge
should subsequently assist companies in better segmenting and targeting international
consumer markets (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2015; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar,
and Diamantopoulos 2015).
Constructs describing negative dispositions toward foreign countries and their products,
such as consumer ethnocentrism (Shimp and Sharma 1987), consumer animosity (Klein, Ettenson,
and Morris 1998), or economic nationalism (Baughn and Yaprak 1996), are conceptually well
developed and have been subjected to intensive empirical investigations (for reviews, see for
example, Shankarmahesh (2006) and Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007)). In comparison,
positive dispositions toward foreign countries, globality, and accompanying products have been
described as “an important yet under-researched topic” (Cleveland et al. 2014, p. 1). However, as
our literature review will show, the current literature does not suffer from a lack of attempts to
study such positive dispositions but rather from a multitude of unintegrated and
unconsolidated efforts seeking to do so. Such efforts have resulted in no fewer than 19
constructs, aiming to capture positive dispositions toward foreign countries and/or
globalization. Exemplary dispositions are global consumption orientation (Alden, Steenkamp,
and Batra 2006), cultural openness (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995), globalization attitude
(Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004), and (consumer) worldmindedness (Nijssen and
Douglas 2008), to name a few. An increase in substantive research incorporating these
dispositions has accompanied this trend. In the last two years alone, researchers have studied,
among others, the effect of (consumer) cosmopolitanism (Cleveland et al. 2015; Grinstein and
Riefler 2015), global connectedness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2015), global identity
4
(Bartikowski and Walsh 2015), and consumer affinity (Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset 2014) on
consumer responses toward foreign or global products.
Despite the volume of research on positive dispositions, the current state of knowledge
is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, literature provides numerous constructs capturing
similar conceptual domains, but often fails to theoretically and/or empirically discriminate
between them. To make things worse, “researchers use the same term to describe different
orientations or attitudes, resulting in considerable ambiguity and a lack of consensus
regarding the precise definition of a term” (Nijssen and Douglas 2008, p. 86). Second, several
dispositions suffer from a lack of clear conceptual development and/or problematic
measurement validation. Third, literature frequently neglects to conceptually or empirically
differentiate scales measuring the same or similar dispositions from each other. Fourth, the
unconsolidated range of constructs and associated scales have resulted in a bulk of fragmented
substantive findings regarding the influence of positive dispositions on consumer response
variables toward foreign and global products.
The above problems, together with the recent nature of several dispositions for which
little literature is currently available (e.g., global connectedness, susceptibility to global
consumer culture), make assimilating and digesting the relevant body of knowledge difficult.
From a theoretical perspective, the plethora of constructs that are apparently conceptually
(very) similar and empirically potentially overlapping makes an informed choice on which
construct(s) to employ in substantive research (and why) extremely difficult. From a
managerial perspective, the lack of knowledge regarding the relative effectiveness of the
different dispositions as predictors of consumer behavior severely limits their practical utility
as segmentation variables. In short, both researchers and practitioners currently confront a
large number of potentially promising constructs for characterizing todays’ consumers but
lack guidance on how to best handle them.

5
In light of the above, the international marketing literature would benefit from
synthesizing the existing range of dispositions, their conceptualizations, and measurement
instruments so as to provide directions for future substantive research (Katsikeas 2003). This
article seeks to advance international marketing literature by (a) developing a conceptual
taxonomy of positive dispositions based on their frame of reference (global vs. country
specific) and scope (general vs. consumption specific) while highlighting the similarities and
the unique features of the various constructs, (b) undertaking a comprehensive review of
relevant conceptualizations and operationalizations, and (c) provide guidance for future
research on positive dispositions, including antecedents, response variables, as well as
potential mediating and moderating influences. This endeavor aims to (a) contribute to the
conceptual development of positive dispositions, (b) facilitate the choice of relevant
constructs for empirical research, (c) motivate further work on enhancing the quality of scales
capturing positive dispositions, and (d) guide future substantive research toward the
development of a solid body of knowledge on the (relative) effects of positive dispositions on
relevant outcome variables. Contributing to managerial practice, our article also aims at
assisting decision makers in making an informed choice of appropriate constructs for
segmentation and targeting purposes (Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede 2002).
The first part of this paper describes the process for identifying relevant constructs for
our review and introduces a taxonomy of positive consumer dispositions. Next, we review the
theoretical base(s) underlying the constructs, their conceptual nature, as well as measurement
issues related to their operationalizations. The second part of the paper proposes a research
framework for studying positive dispositions, including key antecedents, response variables,
as well as potential mediating and moderating influences. Finally, we provide a decision
diagram to guide the appropriate selection of relevant dispositions for research and practical
applications, and conclude the paper with some suggestions for future research.
6
REVIEW AND TAXONOMY OF POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS
We adopted a two-stage approach to identify relevant constructs capturing positive consumer
dispositions toward foreign countries or globalization. First, we conducted a multi-
disciplinary online literature review (including marketing, business, psychology, and
sociology literature) using keyword search and references lists. This first step resulted in a
total of 19 constructs describing marketing-relevant dispositions (Table 1).[1] Second, using a
reference search across 22 marketing and international business journals[2], we identified
conceptual and empirical studies incorporating these dispositions published over the last 15
years. Most articles in this field appeared in the Journal of International Marketing (15),
Journal of Business Research (9), and International Journal of Research in Marketing (7).
[Table 1 about here]
Table 1 shows the earliest constructs originate from sociology literatures (e.g.,
cosmopolitanism, xenocentrism) and psychology literatures (e.g., worldmindedness,
xenophilia). These constructs respectively describe individuals’ admiration of foreign groups
(Kent and Burnight 1951), their tendencies to feel attracted to foreign out-groups (Perlmutter
1954), their ability to take a worldview on problems (Sampson and Smith 1957), and/or their
orientations beyond their local community (Merton 1957). At the time, the marketing
literature did not show any particular interest in the potential relevance of such constructs (or
adaptations thereof) for explaining consumer behavior. Instead, until the late 1980s,
marketing literature focused almost exclusively on negative dispositions toward other
countries or cultures (e.g. Levine and Campbell 1972; Shimp and Sharma 1987).
Hannerz’s (1990, p. 237) claim that “there is now a world culture” might be viewed as
the impetus for research on consumers’ positive dispositions toward foreign countries and
globalization. Since then, the marketing literature has adopted concepts from other research
fields (e.g., cosmopolitanism) and also developed new constructs (e.g., consumer affinity or
7
global consumption orientation). However, the often parallel and uncoordinated efforts to
conceptualize positive consumer dispositions have resulted in a large number of similar and
overlapping constructs (see Table 1). In some cases, apparently identical constructs use
different labels (e.g., cultural openness and global openness), whereas other, divergent
conceptualizations use the same label (e.g., identification with a global community). At an
operational level, Table 1 highlights that literature offers no fewer than 31 measurement
scales (excluding adapted scale versions) for the 19 identified dispositions, because several of
the latter have been operationalized with multiple measurement instruments (e.g., (consumer)
cosmopolitanism, affinity, and worldmindedness). Moreover, for some scales, several adapted
versions are in circulation (e.g., cultural openness). Inevitably, this state of affairs makes it
very difficult “to compare and accumulate findings and thereby develop syntheses of what is
known” (Churchill 1979, p. 67) and thus to provide appropriate guidance to researchers and
practitioners. Accordingly, we first attempt to categorize the 19 dispositions based on their
conceptual definitions. We then use the resulting taxonomy as a navigation chart for
delineating conceptualizations and reviewing operationalization issues.
Taxonomy of Positive Dispositions
Based on their conceptual definitions (Table 1), we classify positive dispositions
according to two key dimensions (see Figure 1).[3] The first dimension (scope) categorizes
dispositions according to whether they describe constructs directed toward either foreign
countries or toward a global world. The second dimension (frame) classifies dispositions
according to their level of abstraction, that is, general (i.e., not relating to a specific domain or
context) versus consumption specific (i.e., directly relating to a consumption context).
Additionally, we use circles to highlight those constructs belonging to a similar conceptual
domain (based on similarities in their conceptual definitions). In the following, we discuss the
conceptual distinctiveness and overlaps of the constructs in each cell of Table 1.
[Figure 1 about here]

8
General Scope & Country Frame. These dispositions describe consumers’ positive
stances toward foreign countries in general (labelled as “multiple countries”) or specific
countries in particular (labelled as “individual country”) without incorporating any
consumption context. With regard to dispositions toward multiple countries, internationalism
(Kosterman and Feshbach 1989) focuses on consumers’ concern about equal welfare across
countries and their willingness to foster equality by lowering own living standards. Cultural
openness (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995) and global openness (Suh and Kwon 2002)
describe very similar conceptual domains (albeit using different labels) both capturing
consumers’ active interest in experiencing and learning about foreign cultures. Xenophilia
(Perlmutter 1954) describes a belief about a general superiority of foreign people compared to
the people in the home country, as reflected in education, manners, and personality, thus
implying a negative valence toward the home country. With regard to dispositions toward a
single country, consumer affinity (Oberecker, Riefler, and Diamantopoulos 2008) is
conceptually unique by capturing positive affect toward one particular foreign country. In
contrast to xenophilia, it does not imply a negative stance toward the home country but
accommodates multiple attachments.
Consumption Scope & Country Frame. These dispositions describe consumers’
positive stances toward products and services from foreign countries and thus specifically
relate to a consumption context. The most prominent construct in recent literature is
(consumer) cosmopolitanism, which multiple authors have conceptualized using different
levels of abstraction and breadth. Cleveland and Laroche (2007)[4] focus on a general
openness toward other cultures asessing consumer’s self perception and navigation through
different cultures (thus making it similar to the constructs of global openness and cultural
openness, see above). Saran and Kalliny (2012), on the other hand, focus exclusively on a
foreign consumption context. Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw (2012) propose a multi-
dimensional conceptualization including a general facet (open-mindedness) and two

9
consumption-related facets (diversity appreciation and willingness to experience foreign
products). Conceptually very close to (consumer) cosmopolitanism is (consumer)
worldmindedness, which describes an openness to other cultures and a willingness to try
unfamiliar products from foreign countries (Nijssen and Douglas 2008). Indeed, Nijssen and
Douglas (2011) use the terms (consumer) worldmindedness and (consumer) cosmopolitanism
interchangebly. Finally, (consumer) xenocentrism (Mueller and Broderick 2009) describes a
preference for foreign over domestic products based on an individual’s identification with a
foreign country. Similar to xenophilia, xenocentrism is also characterized by a negative
valence toward the home country as reflected in a perceived inferiority of domestic products.
General Scope & Global Frame. These dispositions describe consumers’ stances
toward economic globalization (Levitt 1983) or cultural globalization (Holton 2000) without
any conceptual reference to a consumption domain. With regard to economic globalization,
globalization attitude (Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004) — also referred to as attitude
toward globalization (Suh and Smith 2008) — captures an individual’s beliefs about the
economic consequences of globalization. The construct thus represents a cognitive attitude
toward the (un)favorable economic outcomes of globalization, which makes it distinct from
other dispositions that all describe globalization as a cultural phenomenon. With regard to the
latter, the literature offers a number of similar constructs aiming at describing consumers’
identities in light of globality. First, openness to and desire to emulate global consumer
culture (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)[5] is the belief in the existence of a global consumer
culture (GCC) (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999) in which consumer behavior converges
on a global level. Second, global identity (Zhang and Khare 2009) conceptualizes consumers’
self-identification with a global world or community by focusing on the similarities of people
around the world. Third, identification with the global community (Westjohn et al. 2009)
describes an identification with humankind in general rather than particular countries. Fourth,
global connectedness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013) conceptualizes an individual’s

10
attachment and belongingness to a global world. Judging from their conceptual definitions in
Table 1, these four dispositions appear to share substantial parts of their conceptual domains.
Both global identity and identification with the global community are conceptualized as group
identities toward globality, and both view global identity as independent of local/national
identity (i.e., these identities may co-exist). Moreover, global connectedness and openness to
and desire to emulate GCC both describe a consumer’s feeling of belongingness to a global
world. Such conceptual overlap is of concern not least because none of the original papers
introducing these constructs makes an explicit effort to delineate its proposed
conceptualization from others, while younger conceptualizations do not explicitly draw upon
existing work to highlight the need for additional conceptualization. Moreover, the empirical
overlap of these constructs remains largely untested.
Consumption Scope & Global Frame. The final group captures six consumer
dispositions relating to the consumption of global brands and services. Global consumption
orientation (GCO) (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006) and attitude toward global products
(AGP) (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010) both describe four attitudinal responses to global
products. Whereas global consumption orientation measures domain-specific attitudes and is
thus useful for research on consumption behavior in particular categories, attitude towards
global products assesses a generalized attitude toward global/local brands across consumption
domains. Susceptibility to global consumer culture (SGCC) conceptualizes consumers’ desire
to acquire global brands as a function of their (a) superior quality, (b) social prestige, and (c)
conformity to consumption trends (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008), and thus shares partly the
conceptual domain of global consumption orientation and attitude towards global products.
Global citizenship (through global brands) (GCGB) (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008)
and self-identification with global consumer culture (Cleveland and Laroche 2007) both
describe consumers’ tendencies to use global brands as an expression of self-identification
with globality. Thus, whereas the previous three dispositions all conceptualize a behavioral
11
tendency to consciously consume global brands, GCGB and self-identification with a global
consumer culture describe global brands as a vehicle for fostering self-identification. SGCC
additionally references cognitive drivers of such global brand preference.
The remaining two dispositions, namely, global cultural identity (Strizhakova and
Coulter 2013) and glocal cultural identity (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a), are
“hybrid” dispositions comprising both general and consumption-related facets. Both share
substantial parts of their conceptual domains and draw upon existing dispositions as
underlying dimensions. As such, glocal cultural identity uses (a) GCGB (Strizhakova,
Coulter, and Price 2008) to reflect a “global identity dimension,” (b) consumers’ national
identity (Keillor et al. 1996) to reflect a “local dimension,” and (c) consumer ethnocentrism
(Shimp and Sharma 1987) to reflect a “local consumption dimension.” Global cultural
identity, by contrast, focuses exclusively on the global dimension of cultural identity by using
(a) global connectedness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013) as a “global identity dimension,” (b)
global consumption orientation (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006) as a “global lifestyle
dimension,” and (c) attitude towards global products (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010) as a
“brand orientation.” Hence, both constructs are constellations of other existing constructs,
which makes the conceptual disentanglement of their relationship difficult. To further
complicate matters, in a second conceptualization of global citizenship, Strizhakova, Coulter,
and Price (2012b) propose the latter is reflected in (a) the importance of global citizenship, (b)
global identity,[6] and (c) GCGB. This conceptualization of global citizenship, which
distinguishes between a lifestyle dimension (importance of global citizenship), an identity
dimension (global identity), and a consumption dimension (GCGB), in essence captures a
domain similar to global cultural identity.[7]
In summary, our review of the 19 positive consumer dispositions included in our
taxonomy (Figure 1) reveals a great deal of conceptual overlap, duplication, and inconsistent
labeling among the identified constructs that is particularly pronounced for the various
12
“identity-based” dispositions, while empirical overlap (e.g., discriminant validity, criterion
related validity) among similar conceptualizations remains to be tested. In what follows, we
review the theoretical foundations and the conceptual nature of the various dispositions to
further enhance our understanding of existing conceptualizations.
Underlying Theory and Conceptual Nature of Positive Dispositions
The underlying theory of a construct is of key importance because it guides the
delineation of its conceptual domain and the specification of the relevant nomological
network including antecedents, consequences, and co-varying constructs (MacKenzie 2003;
Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma 2003). The theories used in the conceptual development of
the identified dispositions include attitude theory (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975), identity theory
(Stryker 1968), social identity theory (Tajfel 1978), cultural identity theory (Jensen 2003),
consumer culture theory (Appadurai 1990), and acculturation theory (Berry 1997).[8]
Netemeyer, Bearden, and Sharma (2003, p. 90) emphasize that “for measures of latent
constructs to have relevance in social science, the construct should be grounded in a
theoretical framework. Even narrowly abstracted constructs based in theory are more useful as
antecedents or consequences of other latent constructs or behaviors when embedded in
theory.” Although most authors introducing a new disposition do indeed refer to a particular
theory (see Table 1), an elaborate theoretical discussion of the relevant framework is the
exception rather than the rule.
Moreover, several constructs in Table 1 are not grounded in any theory, which makes
the specification of their conceptual nature difficult. In this context, the nature of a construct
guides both its application in substantive research and the interpretation of the resulting
findings (MacKenzie 2003). Table 1 shows that most dispositions are specified as either
orientations or attitudes. This conceptual distinction is important because an orientation
reflects a “set of values, opinions, and competencies held by certain individuals”(Cleveland et
al. 2014, p. 269), whereas an attitude is “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently

13
favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object” (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, p.
10).
For substantive research, the object-specific nature of consumer attitudes provides
scholars with a specific research framework, that is, the belief-attitude-behavior hierarchy that
directly links attitudes and behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). Conclusions drawn from
attitudinal constructs are consequently usually based on an evaluative component, which leads
to a desired behavior aligned with the underlining attitude (Kraus 1995). In contrast to
attitudes, orientations offer a broader depiction of consumers’ stances within a given
conceptual domain and are grounded in behavioral theories of group membership or self-
concept (Hogg, Terry, and White 1995). Given that group attachment typically characterizes
consumer orientations (Tajfel 1982), conclusions from substantive research involving
orientations may differ significantly from conclusions based on attitudinal constructs. For
example, a consumer may express positive sentiments toward a particular global brand not
because, say, (s)he has a positive attitude toward globalization, but because (s)he perceives
the brand as an extension of the self and as a vehicle for strengthening group identification
(e.g. Steenkamp 2014; Swoboda, Penemann, and Taube 2012). Thus, whether a given
construct is an attitude or an orientation is important in helping us understand the reasoning
and motivation for why different consumer groups express positive sentiments toward brands.
Such understanding, in turn, facilitates the tailoring of marketing strategies so as to better
address the underlying sentiments.
Table 1 further shows that, for a number of dispositions, the literature either disagrees
on their conceptual nature in the first place (e.g., (consumer) cosmopolitanism, global/glocal
cultural identity) or fails to specify the latter (e.g., cultural openness, global openness). For
example, some author(s) conceptualize (consumer) cosmopolitanism as an attitude (Cleveland
and Laroche 2007), whereas others view it as an orientation (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and
Siguaw 2012). As another example, the original conceptualizations define global consumption
14
orientation and ‘attitude towards global products’ as attitudes (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
2006; Steenkamp and de Jong 2010), whereas Strizhakova and colleagues use the constructs
as facets of an identity-based disposition (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013). Offering different
specifications of the same disposition may inevitably lead to different interpretations in
different applications, and thus create a confused picture of empirical findings.
Similarly, a failure to carefully delineate the underlying nature of a construct may not
only create difficulties with the identification of the relevant nomological network, but might
also result in measurement misspecification (i.e., the relation specified between the construct
and its measures) (MacKenzie 2003). Judging from their conceptual definitions in Table 1,
the majority of dispositions without an explicitly specified conceptual nature (e.g., global
openness, or self-identification with a GCC) appear to conceptualize orientations because they
reflect self-perceptions and are not object specific.
Measurement of Positive Dispositions
Having reviewed key conceptual issues relating to the various dispositions listed in
Table 1, we now highlight several issues relating to their operationalization. Table 2 provides
an overview of identified scales in terms of dimensionality, scale length, and cross-national
application. The items for all scales are listed in the Web Appendix B.
[Table 2 about here]
Table 2 shows several instances of multiple operationalizations for the same
disposition. This multitude of available operationalizations is not a problem in itself, in case
that they result from (1) differences in the conceptualization of the construct such as
unidimensional versus multidimensional or (2) from scale adaptations. However, multiple
operationalizations do become a problem in that they create confusion when the same
construct label is used but the conceptual domain of the construct is different in each case. An
illustrative example is the consumer affinity construct. In accordance with its conceptual
definition, Oberecker and Diamantopoulos’s (2011) scale measures affinity as an affective

15
disposition, whereas operationalizations by Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset (2014) and Wongtada,
Rice, and Bandyopadhyay (2012) are essentially country-image scales involving cognitive
assessments of factors, such as people, business, politics, and music/entertainment.
Consequently, despite using the term “affinity” in their labels, these latter scales are more
appropriate for characterizing country perceptions rather than measuring consumers’ affect
toward countries (Roth and Diamantopoulos 2009). Another example is global citizenship,
which is unidimensional in its original version (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008),
whereas a later version (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012b) expands — without providing
underlying reasons for the expansion — the conceptual domain to three dimensions, rendering
it similar to the global cultural identity construct (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013). Regarding
scale adaptation, shortening scales for cross-national studies may well be justified in cases in
which capturing a construct’s common-core items is necessary (Cleveland et al. 2014;
Douglas and Nijssen 2003). Similarly, for scales developed in a domestic context, an adapted
etic approach of including construct domains that are non-central, ancillary, or context related
in particular countries might be desirable. However, researchers should explicitly elaborate on
and justify such decisions rather than creating an impression of picking and dropping items
for data-driven reasons.
A review of associate operationalizations demonstrates that the comprehensiveness of
scale-development processes differs considerably across dispositions (see Web Appendix C).
Overall, recent scales are based on more extensive development procedures than earlier
scales, which reflects improved understanding of the importance of valid and reliable
measurement instruments for substantive research. Although a detailed discussion of each
individual scale is beyond the scope of this review, several key issues are worth highlighting.
First, against a background of insufficient conceptual development for several
dispositions as previously discussed, various problems associated with a limited construct
definition may arise as a consequence (MacKenzie 2003). One such problem is that the
16
scale’s content and face validity cannot be evaluated. Indeed, for a number of scales,
congruence between the conceptual definition and item wording appears doubtful. For
example, whereas global identity is conceptually defined as a “[…] belief in the positive
effects of globalization […]” (Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012, p. 36), the measurement items in
the corresponding scale refer to consumers’ identification as citizens of a global world and do
not tap into beliefs about the effects of globalization (see Web Appendix B). Similarly, the
operationalization of (consumer) worldmindedness (Nijssen and Douglas 2008) seems to be
overloaded with items measuring consumers’ consumption of specific ethnic foods rather than
reflecting its conceptual definition as stated in Table 1. In general, scales suffering from
unclear content and face validity inevitably raise doubts about whether they indeed measure
the construct of interest (Hardesty and Bearden 2004). These problems may be amplified in
cross-cultural applications of the scale, because the contextual meaning of words may not
easily translate (see Douglas and Nijssen (2003)).
Second, reporting practices of the psychometric properties for several scales show
large variation. Although most scale applications report measures of internal consistency
(typically Cronbach’s alpha), detailed information on the scales’ dimensionality, temporal
stability, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as criterion validity is scant. Moreover,
even in recent years, some authors rely solely on “first-generation” criteria (e.g., inter-item
correlations, item-total correlations, exploratory factor analysis) for scale development and
validation purposes (e.g., see Spears, Parker, and McDonald (2004) for globalization attitude).
The use of “second-generation” criteria (e.g., CFA, composite reliability, average variance
extracted) is not as widespread, with the notable exceptions being, among others,
identification with the global community (Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012) and GCGB
(Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008).
Third, of particular concern is the lack of (or limited) empirical evidence of
discriminant validity in both the original publication as well as subsequent articles using the
17
scales (see Web Appendix D). This neglect is particularly evident for global-frame
dispositions (e.g., global connectedness, global identity, susceptibility to a global consumer
culture). Despite their apparently similar content domains, researchers have not tested their
discriminant validity against related and overlapping constructs. For other constructs (e.g.,
global openness and global citizenship), evidence of discriminant validity is limited to
differentiating them from a single related construct rather than several potentially related
dispositions. Although the recent nature of some of the constructs and associated scales partly
explains such neglect, the assessment of discriminant validity for a new construct is of
paramount importance because it serves as justification for the uniqueness of the construct
and its added value for research (Churchill 1979). On the positive side, illustrative examples
of thorough discriminant validations are (consumer) cosmopolitanism and globalization
attitude, for which the literature provides considerable empirical evidence indicating their
distinctive nature.
Fourth, for purposes of international market segmentation, the cross-national
applicability of constructs and their measures is of key importance. In this context,
“considerable caution should be exercised when using scales developed in one country or
cultural context in other environments” (Douglas and Nijssen 2003, p. 632). Surprisingly,
however, the emic versus etic nature of the identified dispositions is an untapped topic
(David and Gupta 2001). Judging from the use of scales in multiple countries (see Table 2),
for the majority of concepts, an etic approach appears to have been adopted, thus (implicitly)
assuming the relevant scales are culture free. Indeed, several scales were simply translated
from English into other languages and used in different countries without further adaptations.
On a more positive note, the majority of scales that were developed after Singh’s (1995) and
Mullen (1995) seminal articles have been rigorously subjected to measurement-invariance
tests (Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998) either in the original paper or in later studies (see
Table 2). Although not sufficient to address the question of the cross-national stability of
18
dispositions at a conceptual level, such tests are essential to “ensure that any differences found
between cultures truly reflect the phenomena of interest, and are not simply a reflection of
issues such as scale use tendencies and differences in construct conceptualizations” (Hult et
al. 2008, p. 1028).
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK FOR STUDYING POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS
The first part of this article sought to identify available positive dispositions, classify
them in a taxonomy, and review their conceptualizations and operationalizations. In this
second part, we propose a research framework for studying positive dispositions in order to
advance literature toward a more conclusive body of knowledge. We do so by introducing a
nomological network (Figure 2) incorporating (a) antecedents to positive dispositions, (b) a
causal sequence among dispositions based on the delineation of orientations versus attitudes,
and (c) boundary conditions in the form of moderating variables. Moreover, to provide a
more holistic assessment, the proposed research framework in Figure 2 integrates cognitive,
affective, and behavioral-`response variables based on a hierarchy-of-effects model (Fishbein
and Ajzen 1975). Such a hierarchy-of-effects allows for differentiating between the direct and
indirect effects of positive dispositions on behavioral outcomes, underlying cognitive and
affective mechanisms.
Causal Sequence of Positive Dispositions
Our review of Table 1 revealed two prominent types of conceptualizations, namely,
attitudinal dispositions that relate to a particular object (e.g., a particular country or
consumption good), and orientations that are broader constructs based on identity-theory
without such a focal object. According to social identity theory, depersonalization and social
categorization are the processes through which consumers classify hypothetical group
19
members not as individuals but as members of a group and, as a result, form expectations
about their attitudes and behavior (Hogg and Smith 2007). Thus, general orientations lead to
more specific attitudes (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Tajfel 1978), which suggests identity-based
orientations precede object-specific attitudes that mediate the effect of orientations to
consumer responses toward specific global/foreign brands. Prior literature has made sporadic
suggestions on the causality among positive dispositions (e.g., from cultural openness to
global citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008), or from global openness to attitudes
toward globalization (Suh and Smith 2008)). However, relevant empirical research is
currently lacking. Thus, drawing on the premises of social identity and attitude theory
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Tajfel 1978), empirical studies should systematically investigate
the causal relationships between orientational and attitudinal constructs capturing positive
consumer dispositions.
Antecedent Variables
The proposed research framework incorporates four key categories of antecedent
variables identified from the literature, namely, (a) socio-demographic variables, (b) past
experiences, (c) consumer characteristics, and (d) cultural factors. For some of these
antecedents, the literature provides empirical evidence regarding their impact on particular
dispositions, whereas for other antecedents, relevant evidence is not (yet) available (for a
detailed review see Web Appendix E).
Socio-demographic Variables. Findings consistently show young consumer cohorts
who are exposed to global consumption symbols as part of their youth culture show stronger
orientations toward a global world than older cohorts (e.g. Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 1999;
Batra et al. 2000; Jensen 2003). Similarly, higher levels of education and income foster an
open-minded orientation/attitude toward foreign countries by facilitating exposure to other
countries, cultures, and people (e.g., Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012).
20
Past Experiences. According to the mere exposure effect, individuals can develop
preferences for an object based on their familiarity with and frequent exposure to that object
(Bornstein and D'Agostino 1992). In the current context, this effect suggests people who
travel frequently or have contact to people from other countries develop more positive
dispositions toward them (Oberecker, Riefler, and Diamantopoulos 2008). Likewise, the
environment to which consumers are exposed (e.g., the degree of cultural or ethnic diversity)
can promote or inhibit the development of positive dispositions (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz
1997). In this vein, consumer dispositions are not only a function of consumers’ international
travel experience, but also a function of their exposure to foreign and global media, diverse
cultures, and/or their participation in cross-cultural training (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
2006; Durvasula and Lysonski 2008).
Consumer Characteristics. Based on a value congruency argument, research has
frequently proposed consumer characteristics such as materialism, consumer innovativeness,
and openness to experience (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Steenkamp and de Jong
2010; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012) as drivers of positive dispositions. For
instance, materialism is often associated with symbols of a global consumer culture (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 1999), thus fostering global consumption orientation (Alden,
Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Steenkamp and de Jong 2010). Similarly, consumers scoring
high on innovativeness are positively disposed toward experiencing foreign cultures and their
products, thus satisfying their desire for curiosity and variety (Westjohn, Singh, and
Magnusson 2012).
Cultural Factors. Several studies address the role of cultural factors as antecedents of
positive consumer dispositions. To this end, studies apply both Hofstede’s (1980) cultural
dimensions and Schwartz’s (1992; 1999) value inventory to capture the influence of cultural
factors on (consumer) cosmopolitanism and attitude toward global products (Cleveland et al.
2011; Cleveland and Laroche 2007; Steenkamp and de Jong 2010). Linking positive
21
dispositions to values seems particularly useful because values set “standards to guide
attitudes and predict behavior” (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010, p. 21) that are relatively stable
over time; values may also help explain cross-cultural differences in positive dispositions
(Schwartz 1992).
The range of antecedents examined varies widely across dispositions (see Web
Appendix E). In some cases (e.g., (consumer) cosmopolitanism, attitude towards global
products, and global consumption orientation), a large number of antecedent factors have
been empirically examined, thus generating considerable knowledge as to what drives these
constructs. At the other extreme, for some consumer dispositions (e.g., global identity or
global connectedness), empirical knowledge on potential drivers is practically non-existent.
Our framework suggests similar antecedent variables drive different positive consumer
dispositions; however, the explanatory power of these antecedents or even their place in the
nomological network might vary. For example, for consumption-related dispositions (e.g.,
global consumption orientation or ‘attitude towards global products’), materialism might play
a significant role, whereas for general dispositions (e.g., (consumer) cosmopolitanism,
internationalism), materialism might not be a central explanatory variable or might even be
considered as an outcome variable. In particular, literature has treated materialism as
antecedents (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006), as well as outcome variable (Cleveland,
Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2009) for positive consumer dispositions. Hence, empirical,
experimental, and longitudinal research on the relevance, causality, and relative importance of
the proposed antecedents for the different types of dispositions in Figure 1 is needed to
enhance understanding of their drivers in relation to the reviewed dispositions.
Impact on Consumer Response Variables
Due to their role as potential segmentation variables in international markets, the
effects of positive consumer dispositions on cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables
relating to global and foreign products and brands is of focal interest for the international
22
marketing literature (Özsomer et al. 2012; Schuiling and Kapferer 2004; Steenkamp and Ter
Hofstede 2002). General frame constructs may offer segmentation possibilities on a generic
level (i.e., across product categories), whereas consumption-specific dispositions may be
promising segmentation variables at a more specific level (e.g., brand or category-related).
Web Appendix F provides a summary of empirical findings relating to the impact of positive
dispositions on (a) evaluations, (b) attitudes, (c) purchase intentions, and (d)
consumption/ownership of global and foreign products/brands, respectively.
Although the literature provides extensive empirical evidence on the effects of some
dispositions (e.g., global consumption orientation or (consumer) cosmopolitanism) on
numerous outcome variables, very little is known regarding the extent to which other
dispositions (e.g., (consumer) xenocentrism, or xenophilia) are effective predictors of any
consumer responses. Moreover, empirical knowledge on the relevance of positive consumer
dispositions as predictors of actual ownership or post-purchase behavior is scant (and for
some important behavioral outcomes, such as willingness to pay, non-existent). Third,
empirical studies considering the combined effects of multiple positive dispositions on
outcome variables are scarce. Notable exceptions are studies by Cleveland et al. (2015), who
contrast the contribution of (a) identification with a GCC, (b) openness and desire to emulate
GCC, and (c) cosmopolitanism as predictors of consumption behavior across several product
categories; Riefler (2012), who delineates the effects of globalization attitude and global
consumption orientation on outcome variables; and Guo (2013), who demonstrates
complementary effects of global consumption orientation and global identity on global brand
attitude. Studying the joint effects of positive dispositions should help disentangle potential
overlaps among dispositions and provide insights into possible interrelationships among
dispositions for substantive research.
On the positive side, several dispositions show consistent effects on outcome variables
across studies. For example, both global consumption orientation (Alden, Steenkamp, and
23
Batra 2006; Guo 2013; Riefler 2012) and global identity (Guo 2013; Tu, Khare, and Zhang
2012; Zhang and Khare 2009) consistently show positive effects on attitudes toward global
and foreign brands. Positive globalization attitude consistently increases global brand
evaluation (Riefler 2012; Suh and Smith 2008). Substantive findings for (consumer)
cosmopolitanism, consumer affinity, and (consumer) worldmindedness also converge across
studies despite the use of different operationalizations (Rawwas, Rajendran, and Wuehrer
1996; Saran and Kalliny 2012).
The large majority of extant studies relates dispositions to general outcome variables,
thus assessing consumers’ overall perception of global or foreign products without specifying
any product category or particular brand. Focusing on response variables at a category level
(e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche
2011) or brand level (e.g., Riefler 2012), however, appears a promising approach for
revealing the predictive power of positive dispositions across different contexts.
Moderating Variables
The research framework in Figure 2 further proposes that a number of brand-related,
category-related, and country-related factors may moderate the relationship between positive
dispositions and consumer response variables. With regard to brand-related variables, globally
disposed consumers (e.g., global connectedness and identification with the global community)
may draw upon their global orientations (Arnett 2002; Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche
2011) to formulate more positive identity-congruent evaluations of brands or product
categories (Reed II et al. 2012) if these brands or categories are perceived as highly global
(Özsomer 2012; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). Conversely, if these brands are
perceived as local icons of the home culture, globally disposed consumers may exhibit more
negative identity-congruent responses (Özsomer 2012). Furthermore, the effects of positive
dispositions may be intensified (attenuated) for products originating from countries with a
favorable (unfavorable) product-country image (Papadopoulos, Heslop, and Bamossy 1990).

24
The perceived match between a product category and the country of origin may also have a
similar conditioning effect (Usunier and Cestre 2007); the higher the match, the stronger the
positive impact of consumer dispositions on outcome variables. Finally, the relative price of
global brands compared to local alternatives is likely to pose a boundary condition on the
relationship between dispositions and consumer responses (e.g., Dimofte, Johansson, and
Bagozzi 2010; Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004). Specifically, a high price of a global brand
compared to a local brand may decrease the impact of dispositions on outcome variables
(Özsomer and Altaras 2008; Winit et al. 2014).
With regard to product-category effects, the impact of positive dispositions on
consumer behavior is likely to differ across product categories (Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and
Laroche 2011; Cleveland et al. 2015). First, the hedonic versus utilitarian nature of a category
could be a decisive factor because hedonic products may serve as identity-relevant
consumption objects (Chattaraman, Rudd, and Lennon 2009). Second, the extent to which a
category is culture-bound versus culture-free (Özsomer 2012) might moderate the relationship
between positive dispositions and outcome variables such that stronger effects may be
observed in culture-free categories (Zhou and Belk 2004). Third, effects might be stronger in
product categories such as consumer electronics, which are perceived as highly global
compared to categories such as food, which are perceived as highly local (Özsomer 2012). In
this context, extant research has produced mixed results on the role of positive dispositions
across categories (e.g., Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland,
Papadopoulos, and Laroche 2011; Lee et al. 2009; Rawwas, Rajendran, and Wuehrer 1996)
pointing toward a conditioning of main effects by product category. However, further
research is needed to identify specific product-category properties (e.g., consumption
visibility, perceived risk, or social signaling value) that can theoretically explain these
potential moderating effects.

25
Finally, at a country level, substantial evidence indicates global brands have strong
symbolic value to consumers from developing countries (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price
2008), implying stronger main effects in these countries compared to highly developed
countries. Further, consumers residing in countries from which many global brands originate
(such as the United States) may show weaker effects from positive dispositions to consumer
behavior than consumers residing in (often small) countries where global brands are largely
imported (Riefler 2012).
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The international marketing literature has developed and adopted an array of constructs
describing consumers’ positive dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization. Still,
as our review reveals, the extant body of knowledge is limited because of conceptual and
methodological problems which bedevils their practical applications.
In this paper, we integrated previously disjointed literature and sought to facilitate
understanding of the various dispositions by first organizing them into a manageable
taxonomy and subsequently examining their conceptualizations and critically assessing their
operationalizations. With the goal of introducing order into the domain of consumers’ positive
dispositions towards globalization and cultural outgroups, we highlighted the fact that, for
several conceptual domains, multiple dispositions have essentially addressed similar if not
identical research domains.
At a conceptual level, our review revealed a clear need to empirically establish
discriminant validity of several dispositions (e.g., global identity, global connectedness), since
their construct domains are evidently overlapping and thus drawing into doubt whether they
were in fact distinct. A related issue concerns the limited availability of nomological networks
for several dispositions. Specifically antecedents, related constructs, and/or consequences

26
have not yet been subjected to in-depth investigations. Further, our review highlighted that
several operationalizations of positive dispositions fall short on assessments of face validity as
well as evaluations of cross-national applicability. These insights call for future work on
rigorous psychometric testing and validation of the relevant measurement instruments, taking
into consideration their emic/etic nature. Particularly important in this context is the
assessment of face and content validity to ensure conceptual equivalence in cross-national
applications, the appropriate application of back translations (Douglas and Nijssen 2003), as
well as potential adaptions of older operationalizations for new generational cohorts
(Cleveland and Chang 2009) and across different languages.
At a substantive level, the fragmented evidence of impact on consumer response
variables precludes drawing a conclusive picture on the usefulness of positive dispositions as
predictors of consumer behavior. Extant studies typically focus on a relatively small set of
dispositions and often fail to investigate their relative impact on consumer response variables
or relevant boundary conditions. To advance literature toward a more conclusive body of
knowledge, we proposed a research framework modeling a hierarchy of effects from general
orientations to objective-specific attitudes and, ultimately, to outcome variables. The proposed
causal sequence is novel in this research field and important given that the nature of
constructs affects the interpretation of their substantive effects in research (Riefler 2012). The
proposed framework helps disentangle potential influences of positive dispositions on
cognitive, affective, and behavioral consumer responses. This also motivates empirical
research on the joint impact of multiple dispositions on response toward foreign and global
products, which is currently largely unexplored (exceptions include Cleveland, Laroche, and
Papadopoulos (2015); Cleveland et al. (2015); Guo (2013); Riefler (2012)). Such research is
critical in order to delineate dispositions based on their relative predictive power on different
kinds of consumer response variables, as well as to identify relevant boundary conditions of
the observed effects.

27
SELECTING POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Based on the proposed conceptual taxonomy in Figure 1 and our review of conceptual
properties of the dispositions, Figure 3 describes a decision-aid diagram along several relevant
criteria for selecting appropriate dispositions for different purposes. The diagram is intended
to assist practitioners and researchers alike by “cutting through the clutter” and homing in on
those constructs most relevant for their particular needs. The criteria used to guide the choice
of dispositions include the frame and scope of the research context as a first step, followed by
various decisions on the reference point, implied valence toward the home country,
globalization aspect of interest, and focus of the project. As an illustrative example, a
researcher who is interested in consumers’ positive dispositions toward foreign countries or
globality should first decide on the relevant frame of the project at hand (e.g., country vs.
global). Assuming (s)he decides on a global frame, a second decision involves the scope of
the project at hand (e.g., general vs. consumption). Supposing (s)he decides on a general
scope to capture a broad conceptual domain of consumer orientations/attitudes, the next
decision is which aspects of globalization to address. Assuming (s)he is interested in
consumers’ identification with a global world as a cultural phenomenon, (s)he may choose a
number of dispositions (e.g., global identity, identification with the global community,
openness to and desire to emulate GCC, global connectedness, global/glocal identity) that are
conceptually relevant for this particular research purpose.
Figure 3 illustrates that some paths ultimately lead to a single disposition (as in the
case consumer affinity), which makes the final choice of disposition straightforward. In such
cases, the researcher or practitioner may then go straight to Table 1 to identify whether any
additional conceptual work is needed before using the selected disposition in empirical
28
research. Next, (s)he should consult Table 2 and Web Appendix C to judge the quality of
measurement instrument(s) available and their prior use in the planned research setting (in
terms of language, culture, etc.), and consider any necessary adaptations prior to using the
scale for the purpose at hand. In situations in which a path points to multiple dispositions, to
make an informed choice, decision makers should again first consult Table 1 but also the Web
Appendix D to judge the empirical delineation of these dispositions. Further, at an operational
level, decision makers should use Tables 2 and Web Appendix C to evaluate the psychometric
soundness of the available measurement instruments.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Results of our review and conceptual discussion translate into several promising future
research directions. First, our review has highlighted several shortcomings with respect to the
theoretical foundations of several dispositions. We thus encourage additional studies that
deliberately focus on conceptual development and refinement. Further methodological
research is also needed to ensure measurement instruments adequately capture that the
relevant construct domains are psychometrically stable.
Second, several dispositions have been shown to predict consumer responses toward
foreign or global goods. The literature rarely engages in conceptual discussions as to why
dispositions are predictive of positive response towards foreign or global goods. Studying the
underlying reasons why different types of consumers respond positively to foreign or global
brands should provide a more solid base for differentiating among dispositions. For example,
does preference for global brands signify a global identity as part of a consumer’s self-
concept or is it merely reflective of an attachment to a globalized world? Moreover, regarding
consumers’ reactions toward global brands, the literature provides an extensive list of
potential mediators, such as brand quality, brand prestige, or identity symbolism (Dimofte,
Johansson, and Ronkainen 2008; Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003; Strizhakova, Coulter,
29
and Price 2008). Such variables may also act as explanatory mechanisms for the link between
positive dispositions and consumer behavior.
Third, our review exclusively focused on positive dispositions toward foreign
countries and globalization but excluded other, potentially relevant, dispositions. These
dispositions include positive attachments to ethnicities (e.g., religious/cultural identities) and
particular regions (e.g., regional identities) and could be used in future studies to address the
transition from consumers’ regional attachment to a global attachment in a concentric manner
(Smith 1991). Consumers may simultaneously identify with a regional identity, a national
identity, a supranational identity (e.g., the EU), and ultimately being a global citizen.
Disentangling the role multiple identities play in consumer behavior remains a major research
challenge. For instance, Cleveland, Papadopoulos, and Laroche (2011) show consumers often
complement a local/traditional identity with a globally oriented mindset and are highly
sensitive to product-category differences with respect to consumer behavior for local/global
products. Thus, combining different positive dispositions within a cluster-analytic framework
may reveal distinct and heretofore undetected consumer segments (e.g., consumers with a
cosmopolitan orientation but with negative globalization attitudes), which may present special
challenges for firms when developing brand positioning and communication strategies.
Fourth, and related to the previous point, a promising area for future research involves
the conflicting influences of positive and negative consumer dispositions, given that
consumers are increasingly exposed to a global consumer culture (Alden, Steenkamp, and
Batra 1999), while local market forces continue to play an important role in shaping consumer
preferences (Kjeldgaard and Askegaard 2006). To date, only a few studies have sought to
combine positive and negative dispositions in an effort to segment international markets (e.g.,
Cleveland et al. 2015; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a), and further research in this area
would be most welcome.

30
Fifth, the international marketing literature does not consistently agree on the order of
proposed antecedents and positive dispositions. Therefore, the literature would also benefit
from additional experimental or longitudinal studies to establish causality among dispositions
toward foreign countries and globalization as well as their antecedent variables.
Finally, an as-yet-untapped research question concerns the role of positive dispositions
versus brand-origin influences as predictors of consumer behavior. For example, how would a
strong global identity interact with the country stereotype held by a consumer when the latter
is confronted with a brand from that specific country? Or how would global consumption
orientation affect evaluations of a brand originating in a country with a poor country image?
Answers to such questions would generate additional insights on the relevance and centrality
of positive dispositions as drivers of consumer behavior.

31
REFERENCES
Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social
Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
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 (January), 75-87.
---- (2006), "Consumer Attitudes Toward Marketplace Globalization: Structure, Antecedents and
Consequences," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23 (3), 227-39.
Altintas, Hakan M., Kurtulmusoglu, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, Talha Harcar, and Neriman
Gundogan (2013), "The Development and Validation of a Consumer Cosmopolitan ISM Scale:
The Polar Opposite of Xenophobic Attitudes," Ekonomska Istrazivanja- Economic Research, 26
(1), 137-54.
Appadurai, Arjun (1990), "Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy," in
Theory, Culture & Society, 7 (2), 295-10.
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen (2002), "The Psychology of Globalization," American Psychologist, 57

(10), 774-83.
Bartikowski, Boris and Gianfranco Walsh (2015), "Attitude Toward Cultural Diversity: A Test of
Identity-Related Antecedents and Purchasing Consequences," Journal of Business Research, 68
(3), 526-33.
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S.
Ramachander (2000), "Effects of Brand Local and Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in
Developing Countries," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 83-95.
Baughn, Christopher and Attila Yaprak (1996), "Economic Nationalism: Conceptual and
Empirical Development," Political Psychology, 17 (4), 759-78.
Beck, Ulrich (2002), "The Cosmopolitan Society and Its Enemies," Theory, Culture & Society,
19 (1-2), 17-44.
Berry, John W. (1997), "Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation," Applied Psychology, 46

(1), 5-34.
Bornstein, Robert F. and Paul R. D'Agostino (1992), "Stimulus Recognition and the Mere
Exposure Effect," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 545-52.
Cannon, Hugh M., Sung-Joon Yoon, Laura McGowan, and Attila Yaprak (1994), “In Search of
the Global Consumer,” paper presented to the 1994 Annual Conference of the Academy of
International Business, Boston (November), USA.
32
Chattaraman, Veena, Nancy A. Rudd, and Sharron J. Lennon (2009), "Identity Salience and
Shifts in Product Preferences of Hispanic Consumers: Cultural Relevance of Product Attributes
as a Moderator," Journal of Business Research, 62 (8), 826-33.
Churchill, Gilbert A. (1979), "A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing
Constructs," Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 64-73.
Cleveland, Mark and William Chang (2009), "Migration and Materialism: The Roles of Ethnic
Identity, Religiosity, and Generation," Journal of Business Research, 62 (10), 963-71.
Cleveland, Mark, Seçil Erdoğan, Gülay Anıkan, and Tuğça Poyraz (2011), "Cosmopolitanism,
Individual-Level Values and Cultural-Level Values: A Cross-Cultural Study," Journal of
Business Research, 64 (9), 934-43.
Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2007), "Acculturation to the Global Consumer Culture:
Scale Development and Research Paradigm," Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249-59.
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos (2009), "Cosmopolitanism,

Consumer Ethnocentrism, and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and
Outcomes," Journal of International Marketing, 17 (1), 116-46.
---- (2015), "You Are What You Speak? Globalization, Multilingualism, Consumer Dispositions
and Consumption," Journal of Business Research, 68 (3), 542-52.
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, Ikuo Takahashi, and Seçil Erdoğan (2014), "Cross-Linguistic
Validation of a Unidimensional Scale for Cosmopolitanism," Journal of Business Research, 67
(3), 268-77.
Cleveland, Mark, Nicolas Papadopoulos, and Michel Laroche (2011), "Identity, Demographics,
and Consumer Behavior: International Market Segmentation across Product Categories,"
International Marketing Review, 28 (3), 244-66.
Cleveland, Mark, José I. Rojas-Méndez, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos (2015),
"Identity, Culture, Dispositions and Behavior: A Cross-National Examination of Globalization
and Culture Change," Journal of Business Research, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.025.
David, Luna and Susan Forquer Gupta (2001), "An Integrative Framework for Cross‐Cultural
Consumer Behavior," International Marketing Review, 18 (1), 45-69.
de Jong, Martijn G., Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp, and Bernard P. Veldkamp (2009), "A Model
for the Construction of Country-Specific yet Internationally Comparable Short-Form Marketing
Scales," Marketing Science, 28 (4), 674-89.
Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Yolanda Ruiz (1997), "Affective Bicultural and Global-Human
Identity Scales for Mexican-American Adolescents," Psychological Reports, 80 (3), 1027-39.
33
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Richard P. Bagozzi (2010), "Global Brands in the
United States: How Consumer Ethnicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect," Journal of
International Marketing, 18 (3), 81-106.
Dimofte, Claudiu V., Johny K. Johansson, and Ilkka Ronkainen (2008), "Cognitive and Affective
Reactions of U.S. Consumers to Global Brands," Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 113-
35.
Douglas, Susan P. and Edwin J. Nijssen (2003), "On the Use of “Borrowed” Scales in Cross-
National Research: A Cautionary Note," International Marketing Review, 20 (6), 621-42.
Durvasula, Srinivas and Steven Lysonski (2008), "How Offshore Outsourcing Is Perceived: Why
Do Some Consumers Feel More Threatened?," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21
(1), 17-33.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction
to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Gnoth, Jürgen and Andreas H. Zins (2013), "Developing a Tourism Cultural Contact Scale,"
Journal of Business Research, 66 (6), 738-44.
Grinstein, Amir and Petra Riefler (2015), "Citizens of the (Green) World? Cosmopolitan
Orientation and Sustainability," Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (6), 964-714.
Guo, Xiaoling (2013), "Living in a Global World: Influence of Consumer Global Orientation on
Attitudes Toward Global Brands from Developed Versus Emerging Countries," Journal of
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), "Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture," Theory, Culture & Society,
7 (2), 237-51.
Hardesty, David M. and William O. Bearden (2004), "The Use of Expert Judges in Scale
Development: Implications for Improving Face Validity of Measures of Unobservable
Constructs," Journal of Business Research, 57 (2), 98-107.
Hett, Jane (1993), "The Development of an Instrument to Measure Global-Mindedness," doctoral

dissertation, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Hofstede, G. (1980), "Motivation, Leadership, and Organization: Do American Theories Apply

Abroad?," Organizational Dynamics, 9 (1), 42-63.
Hogg, Michael A. and Joanne R. Smith (2007), "Attitudes in Social Context: A Social Identity
Perspective," European Review of Social Psychology, 18 (1), 89-131.
Hogg, Michael A., Debroah J. Terry, and Katherine M. White (1995), "A Tale of Two Theories:
A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory," Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58 (4), 255-69.
34
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," The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 570 (July), 140-52.
Hult, G. Tomas M., David J. Ketchen, David A. Griffith, Carol A. Finnegan, Tracy Gonzalez-
Padron, Nukhet Harmancioglu, Ying Huang, M. Berk Talay, and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2008),
"Data Equivalence in Cross-Cultural International Business Research: Assessment and
Guidelines," Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (6), 1027-44.
Jensen, Lene Arnett (2003), "Coming of Age in a Multicultural World: Globalization and
Adolescent Cultural Identity Formation," Applied Developmental Science, 7 (3), 189-96.
Katsikeas, Constantine S. (2003), "Reflections on Czinkota and Ronkainen’s International

Marketing Manifesto: A Perspective from Europe," Journal of International Marketing, 11 (1),
28-34.
Keillor, Bruce D., G Tomas M. Hult, Robert C. Erffmeyer, and Babakus E. (1996), "NATID: The
Development and Application of a National Identity Measure for Use in International
Marketing," Journal of International Marketing, 4 (2), 57-73.
Kent, Donald P. and Robert G. Burnight (1951), "Group Centrism in Complex Societies,"
American Journal of Sociology, 57 (3), 256-59.
Kjeldgaard, Dannie and Søren Askegaard (2006), "The Glocalization of Youth Culture: The
Global Youth Segment as Structures of Common Difference," Journal of Consumer Research, 33
(2), 231-47.
Klein, Jill Gabrielle , Richard Ettenson, and Marlene D. Morris (1998), "The Animosity Model of
Foreign Product Purchase: An Empirical Test in the People's Republic of China," The Journal of
Marketing, 62 (January), 89-100.
Kosterman, Rick and Seymour Feshbach (1989), "Toward a Measure of Patriotic and
Nationalistic Attitudes," Political Psychology, 10 (2), 257-74.
Kraus, Stephen J. (1995), "Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the
Empirical Literature," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (1), 58-75.
Lawrence, Steven J. (2012), "Consumer Xenocentrism and Consumer Cosmopolitanism: The

Development and Validation of Scales of Constructs Influencing Attitudes Towards Foreign
Product Consumption," doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Lee, Yuri, Soyoung Kim, Yoo-Kyoung Seock, and Yunjin Cho (2009), "Tourist' Attitudes
Towards Textiles and Apparel-Related Cultural Products: A Cross-Cultural Marketing Study,"
Tourism Management, 30 (5), 724-32.
35
Levine, Robert A. and Donald T. Campbell (1972), Ethnocentrism. Theories of Conflict, Ethnic
Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Levitt, Theodor (1983), "The Globalization of Markets," Harvard Business Review, 61 (3), 92-
102.
Levy, Orly, Schon Beechler, Sully Taylor, and Nakiye a Boyacigiller (2007), "What We Talk
About When We Talk About ‘Global Mindset’: Managerial Cognition in Multinational
Corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (2), 231-58.
MacKenzie, Scott B. (2003), "The Dangers of Poor Construct Conceptualization," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 31 (3), 323-26.
Merton, Robert (1957), "Patterns of Influence: Local and Cosmopolitan Influentials," in Social
Theory and Social Structure, Robert Merton, ed. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, 387-420.
Mueller, Rene Dentiste and Amanda J. Broderick (2009), "Consumer Xenocentrism: An

Alternative Explanation for Foreign Product Bias," Unpublished Working Paper, College and
University of Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Mullen, Michael R. (1995), "Diagnosing Measurement Equivalence in Cross-National Research,"

Journal of International Business Studies, 26 (3), 573-96.
Nes, Erik Bertin, Rama Yelkur, and Ragnhild Silkoset (2014), "Consumer Affinity for Foreign
Countries: Construct Development, Buying Behavior Consequences and Animosity Contrasts,"
International Business Review, 23 (4), 774-84.
Netemeyer, Richard G., William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma (2003), Scaling Procedures:
Issues and Applications. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2008), "Consumer World-Mindedness, Social-

Mindedness, and Store Image," Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3), 84-107.
---- (2011), "Consumer World-Mindedness and Attitudes Toward Product Positioning in

Advertising: An Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning," Journal of
Oberecker, Eva M. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2011), "Consumers' Emotional Bonds with
Foreign Countries: Does Consumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?," Journal of
Oberecker, Eva M., Petra Riefler, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2008), "The Consumer
Affinity Construct: Conceptualization, Qualitative Investigation, and Research Agenda," Journal
of International Marketing, 16 (3), 23-56.
Özsomer, Aysegül (2012), "The Interplay Between Global and Local Brands: A Closer Look at
Perceived Brand Globalness and Local Iconness," Journal of International Marketing, 20 (2), 72-
95.
36
Özsomer, Aysegül and Selin Altaras (2008), "Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical
Synthesis and an Integrated Conceptual Framework," Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4),
1-28.
Özsomer, Aysegül, Rajeev Batra, Amitava Chattopadhyay, and Frenkel ter Hofstede (2012), "A
Global Brand Management Roadmap," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1),
1-4.
Papadopoulos, Nicolas, Louise A. Heslop, and Gary Bamossy (1990), "A Comparative Image
Analysis of Domestic Versus Imported Products," International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 7 (4), 283-94.
Perlmutter, Howard (1954), "Some Characteristics of the Xenophilic Personality," The Journal of
Psychology, 38 (2), 291-300.
Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A., K.N. Rajendran, and Gerhard A. Wuehrer (1996), "The Influence of
Worldmindedness and Nationalism on Consumer Evaluation of Domestic and Foreign Products,"
Reed II, Americus, Mark R. Forehand, Stefano Puntoni, and Luk Warlop (2012), "Identity-Based
Consumer Behavior," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (4), 310-21.
Riefler, Petra (2012), "Why Consumers Do (Not) Like Global Brands: The Role of Globalization
Attitude, GCO and Global Brand Origin," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29
(1), 25-34.
Riefler, Petra and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2007), "Consumer Animosity: A Literature

Review and a Reconsideration of Its Measurement," International Marketing Review, 24 (1), 87-
119.
Riefler, Petra, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, and Judy A. Siguaw (2012), "Cosmopolitan

Consumers as a Target Group for Segmentation," Journal of International Business Studies, 43
(3), 285-305.
Roth, Katharina P. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009), "Advancing the Country Image
Construct," Journal of Business Research, 62 (7), 726-40.
Sampson, Donald L. and Howard P. Smith (1957), "A Scale to Measure World-Minded
Attitudes," The Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1), 99-106.
Saran, Anshu and Morris Kalliny (2012), "Cosmopolitanism: Concept and Measurement,"
Journal of Global Marketing, 25 (5), 282-91.
Schuiling, Isabelle and Jean-Noël Kapferer (2004), "Executive Insights: Real Differences
between Local and International Brands: Strategic Implications for International Marketers,"
Journal of International Marketing, 12 (4), 97-112.
37
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, M. Zanna, ed. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1–65.
---- (1999), "A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work," Applied
Psychology, 48 (1), 23-47.
Shankarmahesh, Mahesh N. (2006), "Consumer Ethnocentrism: An Integrative Review of Its

Antecedents and Consequences," International Marketing Review, 23 (2), 146-72.
Sharma, Subhash, Terence A. Shimp, and Jeongshin Shin (1995), "Consumer Ethnocentrism: A
Test of Antecedents and Moderators," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (1), 26-
37.
Shimp, Terence A. and Subhash Sharma (1987), "Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and
Validation of the CETSCALE," Journal of Marketing Research, 24 (August), 280-89.
Singh, Jagdip (1995), "Measurement Issues in Cross-National Research," Journal of

International Business Studies, 26 (3), 597-619.
Smith, Anthony D. (1991), National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Spears, Martha C., Darrel F. Parker, and Michael McDonald (2004), "Globalization Attitudes and
Locus of Control," Journal of Global Business, 15 (29), 57-66.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. (2014), "How Global Brands Create Firm Value: The 4V Model,"
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L. Alden (2003), "How Perceived Brand
Globalness Creates Brand Value," Journal of International Business Studies, 34 (1), 53-65.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Hans Baumgartner (1998), "Assessing Measurement

Invariance in Cross National Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 78-90.
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 (November), 18-40.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M. and Frenkel Ter Hofstede (2002), "International Market
Segmentation: Issues and Perspectives," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19 (3),
185-213.
Strizhakova, Yuliya and Robin A. Coulter (2013), "The “Green” Side of Materialism in
Emerging BRIC and Developed Markets: The Moderating Role of Global Cultural Identity,"
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30 (1), 69-82.
---- (2015), "Drivers of Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Approach,"
38
Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda Price (2008), "Branded Products as a Passport
to Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Developed and Developing Countries," Journal of
---- (2012a), "The Young Adult Cohort in Emerging Markets: Assessing Their Glocal Cultural
Identity in a Global Marketplace," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 43-54.
---- (2012b), "Response of Global Citizens to Cause-Related Green Marketing." Unpublished

Working Paper, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.
Stryker, Sheldon (1968), "Identity Salience and Role Performance: The Relevance of Symbolic
Interaction Theory for Family Research," Journal of Marriage and Family 30 (4), 558-64.
Suh, Taewon and Ik-Whan G. Kwon (2002), "Globalization and Reluctant Buyers," International
Marketing Review, 19 (6), 663-80.
Suh, Taewon and Karen H. Smith (2008), "Attitude Toward Globalization and Country-of-Origin
Evaluations: Toward a Dynamic Theory," Journal of Global Marketing, 21 (2), 127-39.
Swoboda, Bernhard, Karin Penemann, 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.
Tajfel, Henri (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups. New York: Academic Press.
---- (1982), "Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations," Annual Review of Psychology, 33

(January), 1-39.
Tu, Lingjiang, Adwait Khare, and Yinlong Zhang (2012), "A Short 8-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumers’ Local–Global Identity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 35-
42.
Usunier, Jean-Claude and Ghislaine Cestre (2007), "Product Ethnicity: Revisiting the Match
between Products and Countries," Journal of International Marketing, 15 (3), 32-72.
Wang, Dan, Taiwen Feng, Susan Freeman, Di Fan, and Cherrie Jiuhua Zhu (2014), "Unpacking
the “Skill – Cross-Cultural Competence” Mechanisms: Empirical Evidence from Chinese
Expatriate Managers," International Business Review, 23 (3), 530-41.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark J. Arnold, Peter Magnusson, Srdan Zdravkovic, and Joyce Xin
Zhou (2009), "Technology Readiness and Usage: A Global-Identity Perspective," Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (3), 250-65.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson (2012), "Responsiveness to Global
and Local Consumer Culture Positioning: A Personality and Collective Identity Perspective,"
39
Winit, Warat, Gary Gregory, Mark Cleveland, and Peeter Verlegh (2014), "Global Vs Local
Brands: How Home Country Bias and Price Differences Impact Brand Evaluations,"
Wongtada, Nittaya, Gillian Rice, and Subir K. Bandyopadhyay (2012), "Developing and
Validating AFFINITY: A New Scale to Measure Consumer Affinity toward Foreign Countries,"
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 24 (3), 147-67.
Woodward, Ian, Zlatko Skrbis, and Clive Bean (2008), "Attitudes Towards Globalization and
Cosmopolitanism: Cultural Diversity, Personal Consumption and the National Economy," The
British Journal of Sociology, 59 (2), 207-26.
Zeugner-Roth, Katharina Petra, Vesna Žabkar, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2015),

"Consumer Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of
Consumer Behavior: A Social Identity Theory Perspective," Journal of International Marketing,
23 (2), 25-54.
Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), "The Impact of Accessible Identities on the
Evaluation of Global Versus Local Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524-37.
Zhou, Lianxi, Lefa Teng, and Patrick S. Poon (2008), "Susceptibility to Global Consumer
Culture: A Three-Dimensional Scale," Psychology and Marketing, 25 (4), 336-51.
Zhou, Nan and Russell W. Belk (2004), "Chinese Consumer Readings of Global and Local
Advertising Appeals," Journal of Advertising, 33 (3), 63-76.
40
ENDNOTES
[
1] Using EBSCO and Google Scholar, we identified articles containing combinations of keywords, such as
consumer stance, global/foreign products/brands, worldminded, foreign culture, global identity,
cosmopolitan, disposition toward, or globalization/globality. We excluded constructs that appeared to
be unrelated to the purpose at hand. For example, we exclude cultural contact (Gnoth and Zins 2013)
due to its tourism-specific focus, cross-cultural competence (Johnson, Lenartowicz, and Apud 2006;
Wang et al. 2014) due to its narrow focus on professional expatriates, and global mindset (Levy et al.
2007) due to its explicit focus on managers.
[2] The selection of academic journals is based on the 2011 VHB Jourqual journal ranking by the German
Academic Association for Business Research; see http://vhbonline.org/service/jourqual. Detailed
information on the number of publications per journal can be found in the Web Appendix A.
[3] We exclude the original (i.e., general) conceptualizations of cosmopolitanism (Merton, 1957),
worldmindedness (Sampson and Smith, 1957), and xenocentrism (Kent and Burnright, 1951) from
Figure 1 due to our focus on marketing-relevant conceptualizations.
[4] We include Cleveland and Laroche (2007)’s conceptualization of general cosmopolitanism in this
review, due to its frequent application in marketing-related journals (e.g. Cleveland et al. 2011;
Cleveland et al. 2014). Because space-limitations, however, we exclude conceptualizations that the
marketing literature has not used (e.g. Beck 2002; Woodward, Skrbis, and Bean 2008).
[5] Both self-identification with GCC and openness to and desire to emulate GCC are conceptual
dimensions of an acculturation to the global consumer culture process (AGCC) (Cleveland and Laroche
2007). The remaining dimensions of AGCC, namely, consumers’ frequency of English language and
media usage, their exposure to global mass media, and their social interaction, are not themselves
positive dispositions; therefore, we exclude them from this review.
[6] The global identity dimension is drawn from Der-Karabetian and Ruiz (1997), which is the base for the
identification with the global community construct (Westjohn et al. 2009).
[7] Note also that the lifestyle and identity dimensions are conceptually close to the global connectedness
construct (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013); see General Scope / Global Frame cell in Figure 1.
[8] Further, dynamic theory as an underlying framework for global openness (Suh and Kwon 2002) and
attitude toward globalization (Suh and Smith 2008) is conceptually close to the idea of biculturalism
(Arnett 2002; Berry 1997) but may require additional refinement and should not be understood as a
formal guiding theory but rather as a broad research framework.
41
TABLES
Table 1: Positive Consumer Dispositions Used in Marketing Literature (chronologically from 1951 – 2015)
Underlying Nature of
Disposition Definition Measurement Scales
Theory Construct
“...a view of things in which a group other than one’s own is the center of everything, and all others,
including one’s own group, are scaled and rated with reference to it.”(Kent and Burnight 1951, p.
256)
(Consumer)
Not discussed Orientation
Xenocentrism CXENO Scale (Lawrence 2012)
“a person who prefers products from a country (or region) other than their own and who rates and
scales products in reference to the foreign country and not their own” (Mueller and Broderick 2009,
working paper)
"Xenophilia means literally a love for strangers and foreigners […] and an implicit or explicit
Xenophilia Not discussed Orientation Xenophilia Scale (Perlmutter 1954)
disrespect for or hatred of one's own sociological reference group." (Perlmutter 1954, p. 29)
"A highly worldminded individual is the one who favors a world-view of the problems of humanity,
whose primary reference group is mankind, rather than American, English, Chinese etc." (Sampson
and Smith 1957, p. 99)
Worldmindedness Scale
(Sampson and Smith 1957)
“...a worldview in which ones sees oneself as connected to the world community and feels a sense of
(Consumer) Global-Mindedness Scale
responsibility for its members.”(Hett 1993, p. 89) Not discussed Orientation1
Worldmindedness (Hett 1993)
Consumer Worldmindedness Scale (Nijssen
"...a world-minded (or cosmopolitan) person is viewed as someone who reflects both "cultural
and Douglas 2008)
openness" (i.e., acceptance of ideas, customs, and products from other cultures) and "cultural
adaptability" (i.e., adaptation to local habits and customs when in another country)." (Nijssen and
Douglas 2008, p. 87)
“Internationalism focuses on international sharing and welfare, and reflects an empathy for the Internationalism Scale
Internationalism Not discussed Orientation
people of other countries”(Kosterman and Feshbach 1989, p. 271) (Kosterman and Feshbach 1989)
42
Theory Construct
“…people who oriented themselves outside their community rather than being influenced solely by
local traditions and values” (Merton 1957)
CYMYC Scale (Cannon et al. 1994)
COS 2007 (AGCC)
"...a specific set of qualities held by certain individuals, including a willingness to engage with the
(Cleveland and Laroche 2007)
other (i.e., different cultures), and a level of competence towards alien culture(s)." (Cleveland and
Laroche 2007, p. 252)
(Consumer) Identity Attitude/
C-COSMO Scale
Cosmopolitanism “...the extent to which a consumer (1) exhibits an open-mindedness towards foreign countries and Theory Orientation1
(Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
cultures, (2) appreciates the diversity brought about by the availability of products from different
COSMOSCALE
national and cultural origins, and (3) is positively disposed towards consuming products from
(Saran and Kalliny 2012)
foreign countries.” (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw, 2012, p. 287)
CONCOS Scale
(Altintas et al. 2013)
"...the willingness of individuals to accept things (including materials, product, and services) from
other countries." (Saran and Kalliny 2012, p. 288)
"…experience with and openness towards the people, values, and artifacts of other cultures" Cultural Openness Scale
Cultural Openness Not discussed Not discussed
(Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995, p. 28) (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995)
Dynamic Global Openness Scale

Global Openness "consumers’ cultivated openness to foreign cultures” (Suh and Kwon 2002, p. 666) Not discussed
Theory2 (Suh and Kwon 2002)
"…support or opposition to globalization based upon the individuals belief about the economic
consequences." (Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004, p. 58) Globalization Attitude Scale
Globalization Dynamic (Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004) Attitude
Attitude
Attitude "...it is this superficial, rather than deeper, global mind set, and is defined as the degree to which theory2, 3 Toward Globalization Scale (Suh and Smith
globalization is perceived positively with the benefits to the local economy exceeding the demands 2008)
placed on the local economy"(Suh and Smith 2008 p. 132)
Global Consumer
"…consumer preferences for globalized, localized or hybridized alternatives within a given Global Consumption Orientation Scale
Consumption Culture Attitude
consumption domain." (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006, p. 227) (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006)
Orientation Theory
Openness to and
“individuals who admire the lifestyles of other countries are likely to desire ownership of Acculturation Part of AGCC Scale
Desire to Emulate Not discussed
consumption symbols (i.e., goods) from other countries” (Cleveland and Laroche 2007, p. 252) Theory (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)
GCC
Self-identification
“self-ascribed membership in or outright identification with a global consumer culture” (Cleveland Acculturation Part of AGCC Scale
with Global Not discussed
and Laroche 2007, p. 255) Theory (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)
Consumer Culture
43
Theory Construct
Consumer Affinity Scale
Consumer affinity is ”a feeling of liking, sympathy, and even attachment toward a specific foreign Social
(Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011)
country that has become an in-group as a result of the consumer’s direct personal experience and/or Identity
AFFINITY Scale
Consumer Affinity normative exposure and that positively affects the consumer’s decision making associated with Theory/ Orientation
(Wongtada, Rice, and Bandyopadhyay 2012)
products and services originating from the affinity country.” (Oberecker, Riefler, and Attitude
Consumer Affinity Scale
Diamantopoulos 2008, p. 26) Theory
(Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset 2014)
"the belief that global brands create an imagined global identity with like-minded people” Belief in Global Citizenship through Global
Global Citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008, p. 59) Cultural Brands Scale
(through Global Identity Orientation (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008)
Brands) "...consumer identification with and concern for global citizens and the world at large rather than a Theory Global Citizenship Scale (Strizhakova,
particular country."(Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012b, p. 7) Coulter, and Price 2012b)
Susceptibility to "Susceptibility to Global Consumer Culture is defined as the consumer’s desire or tendency for the
SCGC
Global Consumer acquisition and use of global brands. It is denoted as a general trait of consumers that varies across Not discussed Attitude
(Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008)
Culture individuals and cultures" (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008,p. 337)
"[…] being global means identifying with people around the world." (Zhang and Khare 2009, p.
524) Global-Local Identity (full version)
Social
(Zhang and Khare 2009)
Global Identity Identity Orientation
“ A global identity consists of mental representations in which consumers believe in the positive Global-Local Identity (short version)
Theory
effects of globalization, recognize the commonalities rather than dissimilarities among people (Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012)
around the world, and are interested in global events” (Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012, p. 36)
"...,it captures the degree of psychological and emotional investment one has to the global
Identification with Social Global identification Scale
community" (Westjohn et al. 2009, p. 254)
the Global Identity Orientation (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997; Westjohn et
Community Theory al. 2009)
"the person identifies with humankind as a whole" (Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012, p. 3)
Attitude toward Consumer
"…consumer's response to global and local products across the broad range of product categories." ‘Attitude towards Global Products’ Scale
Global/Local Culture Attitude
(Steenkamp and de Jong 2010, p. 19) (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010)
Products Theory
“broad range of beliefs and behaviors embedded to varying degrees in both global and local Glocal Cultural Identity Scale
discourses”(Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a, p. 43) Cultural (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a)
Global / Glocal Orientation/
Identity Global Cultural Identity Scale
Cultural Identity Attitude4
“the extent to which an individual’s identity focus is more global than local” (Strizhakova and Theory (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013)
Coulter 2013, p. 70)
Global "...an individual's overall attachment and belonging to the global world" (Strizhakova and Coulter Global-Connectedness Scale (Strizhakova and
Not discussed Orientation
Connectedness 2013, p. 73) Coulter 2013)
1
Multiple conceptualizations exist, general cosmopolitanism has been conceptualized as attitude (Cleveland and Laroche 2007), while (consumer) cosmopolitanism is conceptualized as an orientation.
2
Dynamic theory resembles biculturalism (Arnett 2002) and merely provides a research framework for global openness and attitude toward globalization.
3
Globalization attitude (Spears et al. 2004) is not grounded in an underlying theory; however, attitude toward globalization (Suh and Smith 2008) is grounded in dynamic theory
4
Global/Glocal Cultural Identity features both, namely, GCGB, CET, National Identity, and Global Connectedness as orientations, and Global Consumption Orientation and ‘Attitude towards Global Products’ as
attitudes.
44
Table 2: Measurement of Positive Consumer Dispositions1

Tested for
Disposition Author(s) Dimensions Length Countries Languages measurement
invariance
Xenophilia Perlmutter 1954 Unidimensional 10-items Austria; USA English; German No
Chinese; Czech; English;
Austria; China; Czech Republic,
General Scope / Country Frame
Internationalism Kosterman and Feshbach 1989 Unidimensional 9-items German; Hebrew; Japanese; No
Israel; Japan; Turkey; USA
Turkish
Global Openness Suh and Kwon 2002 Unidimensional 4-items China; France; South Korea; USA English; French; Korean No
France; Germany; India; South Korea; English; French; German;
Cultural Openness Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995 Unidimensional 7-items Mexico; Poland; The Netherlands; Korean; Polish; Romanian; Yes
Ukraine; USA Russian; Spanish; Ukrainian;
Sympathy
Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011 7-items Austria English; German No
Attachment
People Affinity
Wongtada, Rice, and Bandyopadhyay 20122 Business Affinity 9-items Singapore; USA English; Thai Yes
Consumer Education Affinity
Affinity Country Affinity
Culture/Landscape
Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset 20142 Music/Entertainment 19-items Norway; USA English No
People
Politics
Open-mindedness
Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw. 2012 Diversity Appreciation 12-items Austria; Singapore English; German Yes
Consumption Transcending Borders
Canada; Chile; France; Greece;
(Consumer) Hungary; India; Japan; Mexico; South Arabic; English; French;
Cleveland et al. 2014 Unidimensional 5-items Yes
Korea; Sweden; Taiwan; Turkey; Japanese; Korean; Turkish;
Consumption Scope / Country Frame
Cosmopolitanism
USA
Saran and Kalliny 2012 Unidimensional 6-items Mexico; USA English; Spanish No
One-World Consciousness
Altintas et al. 2013 Diversity 15-items Turkey English; Turkish No
Cultural Acceptance
Religion
Immigration
Government
Economics Austria; China Japan; Russia; Taiwan; Chinese; English; German;
Sampson and Smith 1957 32-items No
Patriotism USA Japanese; Russian
Race
Education
(Consumer) War
Worldmindedness Interconnectedness of Humanity
Cultural Pluralism
Hett 1993 Ethic of Responsibility/Care 64-items USA English No
Futurist Orientation
Behavior
Cultural Openness
Nijssen and Douglas 2008 8-items Jordan; The Netherlands Dutch; English No
Adaptability
(Consumer)
Lawrence 2012 Unidimensional 6-items USA English No
Xenocentrism
45
Table 2: Measurement of Positive Consumer Dispositions1

Tested for
Disposition Author(s) Dimensions Length Countries Languages measurement
invariance
Positive Attitude
Globalization Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004 20-items Austria; USA German; English No
Negative Attitude
General Scope / Global
Attitude
Suh and Smith 2008 Unidimensional 3-items South Korea English; Korean No
Global Identity
Global Identity Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012 8-items China; India; U.K.;USA Chinese; English Yes
Local Identity
Frame
Identification with
the Global Westjohn et al. 2009 Unidimensional 5-items China; USA Chinese; English No
Community
Global Australia; Brazil; China; India; Chinese; English;
Strizhakova and Coulter 2013 Unidimensional 7-items Yes
Connectedness Russia; USA Portuguese; Russian
Openness to and
Canada; Chile; Jordan; Lebanon; The
Desire to Emulate Cleveland and Laroche 2007 Unidimensional 4-items Arabic; English; French Yes
Netherlands; USA
GCC
Lifestyle
Global Entertainment
Austria; China; Singapore; South Chinese; English; German;
Consumption Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra. 2006 Clothing 20-items Yes
Korea; Turkey; U.K.; USA. Korean; Turkish
Orientation Furnishing
Food
Argentina; Austria; Brazil; Belgium
Chinese; Czech; Danish;
Lifestyle China; Czech Republic; Denmark;
Consumption Scope / Global Frame
Dutch; English; Flemish;

Entertainment France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland;
France; German; Hungarian;
Attitudes towards Clothing Italy; Japan; Norway; Poland;
Steenkamp and de Jong 2010 24-items Italian; Japanese; Norwegian; Yes3
Global Products Furnishing Romania; Russia; Slovakia; Spain;
Polish; Romanian; Russian;
Food Sweden; Switzerland; Taiwan;
Slovakian; Spanish; Swedish;
Brands Thailand; The Netherlands; Portugal;
Thai; Portuguese; Ukrainian
U.K.; Ukraine; USA
Susceptibility to Conformity to Consumption Trends
Global Consumer Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008 Quality Perception 13-items Canada; China; Taiwan Chinese; English Yes
Culture Social Prestige
India; Romania; Russia; U.K;
Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008 Unidimensional 3-items English; Romanian; Russian Yes
Ukraine; USA
Global
Citizenship Importance of Global Citizenship
Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a Identity 9-items Brazil; Romania; Russia; U.K.; USA English; Portuguese; Russian Yes
GCGB
GCO - Lifestyle orientation
Global/Glocal Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012b Chinese; English;
AGP - Brand Orientation 15-items Australia; Brazil; China; India; USA Yes
Cultural identity Portuguese; Russian
Global Connectedness
Canada; Chile; Greece; Hungary;
Self-identification
India; Jordan; South Korea Lebanon;
with Global Cleveland and Laroche 2007 Unidimensional 8-items Arabic; English; French Yes
Mexico; Sweden; The Netherlands;
Consumer Culture
USA
1
Note that for some scales, several versions are in circulation; we report the most recent version in this table.
2
These scales measure country image rather than consumer affinity.
3
Invariance was tested under the assumptions of IRT (de Jong, Steenkamp, and Veldkamp 2009)
46
FIGURES
Figure 1: Taxonomy of Positive Consumer Dispositions
Scope
General Consumption
Negative-
Interest and valence towards
Consumers’ Consumption of foreign
Concern admiration of home country
attachments towards products
for world foreign
an individual foreign
Country
welfare countries
country
(Consumer)
(Consumer) Cosmopolitanism*
Consumer Cultural Xenophilia
Internationalism Xenocentrism
Affinity Openness
(Consumer)
Worldmindedness
Global
Openness
Individual
Country Multiple Countries
Frame
Group identity Cultural identity Consumption of Identity-based

Economic
global brands consumption
consequences of
globalization Global
Attitude towards
Identity Global
Global Products
Global
Susceptibility to Citizenship
Identification with Global
the Global Connectedness Global Consumer
Globalization Global Culture
Attitude Community Consumption Self-identification
Orientation with Global
Openness to and
Global/Glocal Consumer Culture
desire to emulate
GCC Cultural Identity
Economic
Globalization Cultural Globalization
* Literature provides conceptualizations of (consumer) cosmopolitanism which differ in their scope. The conceptualization by Cleveland and Laroche (2007) reflects a general scope, Saran and Kalliny (2012)’s a consumption specific scope, while
Riefler, Diamatopoulos, and Siguaw (2012) conceptualization comprises both scopes.
47
Figure 2: A Research Framework for Studying Positive Consumer Dispositions
Socio-demographics
• Age
• Income
• Education
• Gender
• Religion
Past experience
Positive Dispositions Consumer Responses
• Cross-cultural interaction
• Sojourn abroad Social Identity Theory Attitude Theory
•
Antecedents*
Travel experience
• International social network
• Exposure to global mass media
Post
Consumer Consumer Product Product Behavioral Purchase
Purchase
Orientations Attitudes Beliefs Attitudes Intentions Behavior
Consumer Characteristics Behavior
• Openness to experience
• Materialism
• Cultural openness
• Social status seeking
• Consumer innovativeness
• Susceptibility to normative
influence
Cultural Factors
Moderators*
• Power distance • Perceived brand globalness • Product category
• Masculinity • Perceived brand local iconness • Relative price
• Individualism
• Tradition
• Country of origin • Level of economic
• Universalism • Product ethnicity development
* These lists are not meant to be exhaustive. Further antecedents/ moderators might be added and investigated.
48
Figure 3: Selection of Positive Consumer Dispositions

Concern for world welfare
• Internationalism (O)
No particular
valence towards the home country Project
Multiple Focus?
Interest and
General Reference Countries
Valence? admiration of foreign countries • Global Openness (O)
Point? • Cultural Openness (O)
What is the
Country Scope of Negative-valence towards the home country
your • Xenophilia (O)
Project?
Single Country
• Consumer Affinity (O)
No particular valence towards the home country • Consumer Cosmopolitanism (O)**

• Consumer Worldmindedness (O)
Consumption
See Tables 2 & Web Appendix

Valence?
What is the
Frame of Negative-valence towards the home country
Scale selection
your • Consumer Xenocentrism (O)
Project?
• Global Identity (O)

Identification with a global world • Identification with a Global Community (O)
• Openness to and desire to emulate GCC (O)
• Global/Glocal Cultural identity (O)
• Global Connectedness (O)*
General Aspect of
Globalization?
Beliefs in economic globalization

• Globalization Attitude (A)
What is the
Global Scope of
your
Project?
Consumption of global brands • Attitude towards Global Products (A)*

• Global Consumption Orientation (A)*
• Susceptibility to Global Consumer Culture (A)
Consumption Focus of
Project?
Identity-based consumption • Self-identification with global consumer

* Part of Global/Glocal Cultural Identity; (O) Orientation; (A) Attitude culture (O)
• Global Citizenship (O)
** Literature provides conceptualizations of (consumer) cosmopolitanism which differ in their scope. The conceptualization by Cleveland and Laroche (2007) reflects a general scope, Saran and Kalliny (2012)’s a
consumption specific scope, while Riefler, Diamatopoulos, and Siguaw (2012) conceptualization comprises both scopes.
49
WEB APPENDIX
Fabian Bartsch, Petra Riefler, Adamantios Diamantopoulos
Appendix A: Journal Overview
Journal articles including positive consumer dispositions (since 2000)1

Journal of International Marketing 15
Journal of Business Research 9
International Journal of Research in Marketing 7
International Marketing Review 6
Journal of International Business Studies JIBS 5
European Journal of Marketing 4
International Business Review 3
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2
Journal of Marketing 2
Journal of Consumer Research 1
Journal of Strategic Marketing 1
Psychology and Marketing 1
Journal of Marketing Research 0
Marketing Science 0
Marketing Letters 0
Journal of Consumer Psychology 0
Journal of Services Marketing 0
Journal of World Business 0
Management International Review 0
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 0
Journal of Service Research 0
Journal of Retailing 0
1
Conceptual and empirical articles included
50
APPENDIX B: MEASUREMENT SCALES OF POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS
Cell 1: General Scope / Country Frame
Xenophile Scale (Perlmutter 1954)

1. The chief stimulants to basic American institutions in this country have come mainly from European and Oriental ideas and doctrines.
2. The most delicious foods are European or Oriental.
3. The British use the English language better than most Americans.
4. European men are usually more romantic than American men.
5. Too much stress is placed on Americanism these days, not enough on the fact that we are all descendants of the Old World.
6. Compared to the French, Americans are an unimaginative people.
7. European Children are generally better mannered than Americans.
8. European on the whole appreciate and understand the arts better.
9. Most European girls make better wives than American girls.
10. European generally are a warmer and friendlier people than Americans.
Answer format: 6- Point Likert 1=”I strongly disagree”, 6=”I strongly agree”
Internationalism (Kosterman and Feshbach 1989)

1. If necessary, we ought to be willing to lower our standard of living to cooperate with other countries in getting an equal standard for
every person in the world.
2. The alleviation of poverty in other countries is their problem, not ours.
3. America should be more willing to share its wealth with other suffering nations, even if it doesn’t necessarily coincide with our political
interests.
4. We should teach our children to uphold the welfare of all people everywhere even though it may be against the best interest of our own
country.
5. I would not be willing to decrease my living standard by ten percent to increase that of persons in poorer countries of the world.
6. Children should be educated to be international minded - to support any movement which contributes to the welfare of the world as a
whole, regardless of special national interest.
7. The agricultural surpluses of all countries should be shared with the have-not of the world.
8. The position a U.S. citizen takes on an international issue should depend on how much good it does for how many people in the world,
regardless of their nation.
9. Countries needing our agricultural surpluses should pay for them instead of getting something for nothing.
Answer format: 5-Point Likert scale 1=”strongly disagree”, 5=”strongly agree”
Global Openness (Suh and Kwon 2002)

It is necessary to make an effort to understand other cultures perspectives and integrate them into my own way of thinking.
Living and working a foreign country may be an influential developmental experience of my own life.
I have a real interest in other cultures or nations.
I enjoy being with people from other countries to learn their unique views and approaches.
Answer format: 5-Point Likert 1=” I strongly disagree” 5=”I strongly agree”
Cultural Openness (Sharma, Shimp, and Shin 1995)

I would like to have opportunities to meet people from other countries.
I am very interested in trying other products from different countries.
We should have respect for traditions, cultures, and ways of life of other nations.
I would like to learn more about other countries.
I have a strong desire for overseas travel.
I would like to know more about foreign culture and customs.
I have a strong desire to meet and interact with people from foreign countries.
Answer format: 7-Point Likert 1=”I strongly disagree”, 7=”I strongly agree”
51
Original Consumer Affinity Scale (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011)

Pleasant feeling.
Sympathy
Like.
Feeling of Sympathy.
Captivated.
Attachment Feeling attached.
Love.
Inspired.
Answer format: Coding: 0=”not felt”, 1= “slightly”, 5= “extremely”
AFFINITY Scale (Wongtada, Rice, and Bandyopadhyay 2012)
People Affinity Americans are friendly.

Americans are likable.
The USA is the world business leader.
Business Affinity
American companies are very competitive.
All of the leading companies nit he world are located in the USA.
I admire the quality of education in the USA.
The education in the USA stresses the importance of analytical thinking instead of merely memorizing
Education Affinity
information.
Americans are well educated.
All Americans have the opportunity for a good education.
Answer format: 5-Point Likert: 1=”strongly disagree” 5=”strongly agree”;** dropped items
Consumer Affinity (Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset 2014)
I like Country
Affinity
I feel fondness for Country
I appreciate this country’s history
I appreciate country food and cuisine
Culture/landscape I like the nature and landscape in Country
I like this country’s art
I like this country’s architecture
I like country’s music
Music/entertainment I like the movies and entertainment from country
I like the language in Country
I feel the people in Country are open and friendly to foreigners
I like the way of living in this country
I trust the people in this country
People
I like the mentality of the people in this country
My experience with the people from this country are positive
I cannot identify with the people from Country
I like Country government policies
Politics I like this country’s political system
The role of the country in world politics is admirable
Answer format: 7-Point Likert: 1=”strongly disagree” 7=”strongly agree”
52
Cell 2: Consumption scope /Country Frame

C-COSMO Scale (Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012)
When travelling, I make a conscious effort to get in touch with the local culture and traditions.
Open mindedness I like having the opportunity to meet people from many different countries.
I like to have contact with people from different cultures.
I have got a real interest in other countries.
Having access to products coming from many different countries is valuable to me.
Diversity appreciation The availability of foreign products in the domestic market provides valuable diversity.
I enjoy being offered a wide range of products coming from various countries.
Always buying the same local products becomes boring over time.
I like watching movies from different countries.
Consumption
I like listening to music of other cultures.
transcending borders
I like trying original dishes from other countries.
I like trying out things that are consumed elsewhere in the world.
Subscale Cosmopolitanism of AGCC (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)

I am interested in learning more about people who live in other countries.
I like to learn about other ways of life.
I enjoy being with people from other countries to learn about their unique views and approaches.
I like to try restaurants that offer food that is different form that in my own culture.
I enjoy exchanging ideas with people from other cultures or countries.
I like to observe people of other cultures, to see what I can learn from them.
I find people from other culture stimulating.
When travelling, I like to immerse myself in the culture of the people I am visiting.
Coming into contact with people of other cultures has greatly benefited me.
COS Scale 2014 (Cleveland et al. 2014)

I like to observe people of other cultures, to see what I can learn from them.
I am interest in learning more about people who live in other countries.
I enjoy exchanging ideas with people from other cultures and countries.
I like to learn about other ways of life
I enjoy being with people from other countries to learn about their unique views and approaches.
COSMOSCALE (Saran and Kalliny 2012)

I think it’s good to spend time with people who are willing to talk and learn about other cultures.
I think I respect others’ culture the way I respect mine.
I think if people have a positive attitude toward other communities, there would be less conflict in the world.
I think to be successful, one needs to be able to use materials, information, knowledge, etc. from other cultures.
I am ready to learn about other cultures through listening, observation, thinking, and reflecting.
I think reading about world events is worthwhile.
Answer format: not reported
53
CONCOS Scale (Altintas et al. 2013)
It is more important for oneself to her/his contribution to the world than which country he/she lives in.
One-world
I believe that world is a common nation of humanity.
consciousness
Humanistic principles and consciousness are more important than which country I live in.
Every person should be treated as equal.
I believe that every different cultural experience develops me.
The most important things is to make an intra-congruency of differences.
Diversity
Every person has to balance their own values with the world.
Interaction with differences is more important that stereotypes and habits.
To experience multiculturalism is a useful attribute.
Every person must reinforce their own experiences and learn things with other cultures.
I belong to the world.
Cultural acceptance It needs to learning from a culture rather than insulting it.
People should earn from a culture rather than insult it.
I believe that every country can develop by seeing differences as a wealth of their country
I believe in equal distance to every culture.
Worldmindedness Scale (Sampson and Smith 1957)

Our country should have the right to prohibit certain racial and religious groups from entering it to live.
Foreigners are particularly obnoxious because of their religious beliefs.
Religion It would be dangerous for our country to make international agreements with nations whose religious beliefs are
antagonistic to ours.
It would be dangerous for us to guarantee by international agreement that every person in the world should have complete
religious freedom.
Immigrants should not be permitted to come into our country if they compete with our own workers.
Immigration Immigration should be controlled by an international organization rather than by each country on its own.
Any healthy individual, regardless of race or religion, should be allowed to live wherever he wants to in the world.
Our country should permit the immigration of foreign people even if it lowers out standard of living.
It would be a dangerous procedure if every person in the world had equal rights, which were guaranteed by an
international charter.
Government We ought to have a world government to guarantee the welfare of all nations irrespective of the rights of any one.
Our country should not participate in any international organization which requires that we give up any of our national
rights of freedom of action.
All national governments ought to be abolished and replaced by one central world government.
All prices for exported food and manufactured goods should be set by an international trade committee.
Our country should not cooperate in any international trade agreements which attempt to better world economic
Economics conditions at our expense.
If necessary, we ought to be willing to lower our standard of living to cooperate with other countries in getting an equal
standard for every person in the world.
It would not be wise for us to agree that working conditions in all countries should be subject to international control.
Our country is probably no better than many others.
Patriotism It would be better to be a citizen of the world than of any particular country.
We should strive for loyalty to our country before we can afford to consider world brotherhood.
Patriotism should be a primary aim of education so our children will believe our country is the best in the world.
Race prejudice may be a good thing for us because it keeps many undesirable foreigners from coming into this country.
Race Our responsibility to people of other races ought to be as great as our responsibility to people of our own race.
Some races ought to be considered naturally less intelligent than ours.
It would be a good idea if all the races were to intermarry until there was only one race in the world.
It would be a mistake for us to encourage certain racial groups to become well educated because they might use their
knowledge against us.
An international committee on education should have full control over what is taught in all countries about history and
Education
politics.
Our schools should teach the history of the whole world rather than of our own country.
We should teach our children to uphold the welfare of all people everywhere even though it may be against the best
interest of our own country.
We should be willing to fight for our country without questioning whether it is right or wrong.
War Our country should refuse to cooperate in a total disarmament program eve if some other nations agreed to it.
An international police force ought to be the only group in the world allowed to have armaments.
War should never be justifiable even if it is the only way to protect our national rights and honour.
54
Consumer Worldmindedness (Nijssen and Douglas 2008)
Even when consuming a particular foreign product does not fit the norms and values of my own culture, I still try
Cultural Openness it.
Even if I do not know how well a specific foreign brand will perform beforehand, I try it.
(Yoon, Cannon, and
When grasshopper is promoted as a delicacy in a Mexican restaurant in the Netherlands, I like to try it.
Yaprak 1996)
When a foreign friend recommends a product from his/her own culture that is unknown to me, I am prepared to
try it without any prejudice.
If I move to the U.S. and I have to buy a car, then it is very likely that I would switch to an American brand.
Adaptability Even though I (for example) would like French wine very much, I like to drink wines from other traditional wine
countries like Spain and Italy as well.
(Hannerz 1990) Although I (may) have a favourite drink, when and for the time that I visit another country I will drink the local
alternative.
Although I prefer a certain type of food, when and for the time that I am abroad I adopt the local cuisine.
Global –Mindedness Scale (Hett 1993)
1. What happens in other countries has little impact on what happens in this country. (reverse)
2. In the long run, Americans will probably benefit from the fact that the world is becoming more
interconnected.
3.
Interconnectedness of I feel a strong kinship with the worldwide human family.
Humanity 4. I have very little in common with people in underdeveloped nations. (reverse)
5. Social problems are rapidly becoming globalized.
6. I think of myself, not only as a citizen of my country, but also as a citizen of the world.
7. It is not really important to me to consider myself as a member of the global community. (reverse)
8. My behavior can impact people in other countries.
9. Americans can learn something of value from all different cultures.
10. The values of my culture are not necessarily the best.
11. I feel irritated with people from other countries because they don’t understand how we do things here,
(reverse)
12. American people are probably the best in the world. (reverse)
13. I am not interested in learning about other cultures. (reverse)
14. It is probably a good idea to use ethnicity as one of the criteria for deciding who should be allowed to
immigrate of the United States. (reverse)
15. The thought of travelling to other countries doesn't appeal to me very much, (reverse)
Cultural Pluralism 16. I like to compare the values and customs of my country with those of other countries.
17. The United States is enriched by the fact that it is comprised of many people from different cultures and
countries.
18. It is important that universities and colleges provide programs designed to promote understanding among
students of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
19. I think some cultures value human life less than mine does. (reverse)
20. I generally find it stimulating to spend an evening talking with people from another culture.
21. I enjoy trying to understand people's behavior in the context of their culture.
22. I would not want to live or study in another country. (reverse)
23. It's not a high priority for me to learn or be able to speak another language since English is an international
language. (reverse)
24. We must sometimes give up what we want as individuals for what is best for our community.
25. The needs of the United States must continue to be our highest priority in negotiating with other countries
(reverse)
26. I feel an obligation to speak out when I see our government doing something I consider wrong.
27. I feel very concerned about the difficult lives of people who live in politically repressive regimes.
28. The fact that a flood can kill 5,000 people in India is very depressing to me.
Ethic of 29. When I see the conditions some people in the world live under, I feel I must do something.
Responsibility/Care30. When I hear that thousands of people are starving in an African country, I feel very frustrated.
31. Americans have a moral obligation to share their wealth with the less fortunate peoples of the world.
32. My opinions about national policies are based on how those policies might affect the rest of the world as well
as the United States.
33. I sometimes try to imagine how a person who is always hungry must feel.
34. I am considering joining the Peace Corps or some similar international service organization at some point in
my life.
35. I am able to affect what happens on a global level by what I do in my own community.
36. Generally an individual's actions are too small to have a significant effect on the world's ecosystem, (reverse)
Futurist Orientation
37. Really, there is nothing I can do about the problems of the world, (reverse)
38. People should be permitted to pursue the standard of living they can afford, even if it has a negative impact
on the environment, (reverse)
55
39. It is a waste of time to worry about the long term future since we can't control what will happen anyway,
(reverse)
40. The present distribution of the world's wealth and resources should be maintained because it promotes
survival of the fittest, (reverse)
41. I often think about the kind of world we are creating for future generations.
42. Technology will solve most of the problems we currently face in the world, (reverse)
43. It is important that we educate people to understand the impact that current policies might have on future
generations.
44. Concessions on the part of my country to other countries are morally right if the concession will promote
peace.
45. I plan to pursue a career in which I can have a positive effect on the quality of life of future generations.
46. The primary goal of American foreign policy should be to promote peaceful resolution of international
conflict.
47. I participate in or contribute money to an organization which is combatting world hunger.
48. I participate in an organization which has ecological concerns as a part of its agenda.
49. I participate in an organization which publicly expresses its concern on national or international issues.
50. I participate in or contribute money to an organization which supports universal human rights.
51. I seek out opportunities for meeting people who speak other languages.
52. I recycle paper, plastic, etc.
53. I vote in local, state and national elections.
54. I look for opportunities to meet people from backgrounds different from mine.
Behavior 55. My friends and I discuss current events and world issues.
56. I read news articles about international events.
57. I participate in events with an international focus.
58. I contribute time or money to political causes.
59. I read books or magazine articles about other cultures.
60. I participate in political demonstrations.
61. I make a point to watch television specials about foreign countries and their cultures.
62. I participate in student programs and activities that broaden my understanding of ethnic groups other than my
own.
63. I write to members of Congress and other political leaders to express my views.
64. I try to acquire information about international developments.
CXENO (Lawrence 2012)

1. I prefer to buy foreign made products.
2. All other things being equal, I prefer to buy foreign products.
3. I find that I enjoy using foreign made products more than products made in home country.
4. I get a better feeling from buying a foreign made product than from buying one that is made in the home country.
5. Compared to the home country there are many other countries I prefer to buy from.
6. I feel better about buying most foreign products than home country-made products.
56
Cell 3: General Scope / Global Frame

Globalization Attitude (Spears, Parker, and McDonald 2004)
In my opinion, increased economic globalization…
Leads to unfair/ unequal distribution of income (R).
Encourages unethical (cut-throat) business behavior (R).
Leaders to insufficient provision of important public services (R).
Encourages greed and Materialism (R).
Leads to inflation (R).
Negative
Leads to monopolies (R).
Encourages the abuse of natural resources (R).
Leads to excessive unemployment risk for workers (R).
Leads to excessive risk of business failure (R).
Requires much government control be efficient (R).
Allows unfair foreign competition (R).
Encourages a maximum of personal freedom and choice.
Leads to quality and technical advances.
Provides opportunities and incentives for success.
Allows equal access to economic opportunities.
Positive
Raises the living standards for the average person.
Leads to efficient allocation of resources.
Maximizes consumer choice for products and services.
Provides consumer the goods and services they want.
Provides employment opportunities for all who desire.
Answer format: 5-Point Likert 1=” I strongly disagree” 5=”I strongly agree”; (R) reversed coded
Attitude toward Globalization (Suh and Smith 2008)

1. Globalization makes personal demands on each of us as individuals.
2. As a company globalizes, I believe that the country operations will demonstrate clear benefits to the local economy.
3. The word globalization has a positive meaning.
Global/local identity first Scale (Zhang and Khare 2009)

I am well aware of global events.
I believe I mostly belong to the whole world.
I like to know about people in other parts of the world.
I believe our world is becoming similar.
Global
I believe that globalization improves local practices.
I believe that people all over the world are more similar than different.
I believe people should be made more aware of how connected we are to the rest of the world.
I strongly identify that I am a global citizen.
Being a member of a global village often affects how I tend to view the world around me.
I am well aware of local events.
I believe I mostly belong to my local community.
I like to know about people in my local community.
I believe local communities are different from each other.
Local I believe that the local way of life is harmed by globalization.
I respect my local traditions.
I believe parents should pass on local customs to their children.
I like to know local news more than world news.
I believe that the local consequences of our actions are more important than the global consequences.
I can more easily find like-minded people within my community than outside.
57
Global/local identity shortened Scale (Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012)

My heart mostly belongs to the whole world.
Global I believe people should be made more aware of how connected we are to the rest of the world.
I identify that I am a global citizen.
I care about knowing global events.
My heart mostly belongs to my local community.
Local I respect my local traditions.
I identify that I am a local citizen.
I care about knowing local events.
Identification with global community (Westjohn et al. 2009)
Global Identification I feel like I’m living in a global village.

I feel what I do could touch someone all around the world.
(Der-Karabetian & I feel like I am “next door neighbors” with people living in other parts of the world.
Ruiz, 1997) I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.
I feel that people around the world are more similar than dissimilar.
Answer format: 6- Point Likert 1=”I strongly disagree”, 6=”I strongly agree”
Global Connectedness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013)

I have a strong attachment to the global world.
I feel connected to the global world.
I think of myself as a global citizen.
It is important to me to feel a part of the global world.
Thinking about my identity, I view myself as a global citizen.
Feeling like a citizen of the world is important to me.
I would describe myself as a global citizen.
Openness to and desire to emulate GCC (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)
I think people my age are basically the same around the world. For example, a 20-something in Russia is basically the same as a 20-
something in the U.S., Sweden, or anywhere else.
I think that my lifestyle is almost the same as that of people of my age-group in other countries.
I think my lifestyle is almost the same as that of people of my social class in other countries.
When travelling abroad, I appreciate being able to find Western products and restaurants.
58
Cell 4: Consumption Scope / Global Frame

Global Consumption Orientation GCO (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006)
It is important for me to have a lifestyle that I think is similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around
the world rather than one that is more unique to or tradition in home country.
I try to blend a lifestyle that is considered unique to or traditional in home country with one that I think is similar to
Lifestyle the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around the world.
It is more important for me to have a lifestyle that is unique to or traditional in home country rather than one that I
think is similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around the world.
To be honest, I do not find the typical lifestyle in home country or the lifestyles of consumers in other countries very
interesting.
I enjoy entertainment that I think is popular in many countries around the world more than traditional forms of
entertainment that are popular in my own country.
While I like entertainment that I think is popular in many countries around the world, I also enjoy traditional forms of
Entertainment
entertainment that are popular in my own country.
Entertainment that is traditional in my own country is more enjoyable to me than entertainment that I think is popular
in many countries around the world.
To be honest, most entertainment, whether from my own traditional culture or from other countries, is boring to me..
I prefer to have home furnishings that I think are popular in many countries around the world rather than furnishing
that are considered traditional in my own country.
I do not mind mixing home furnishing that are traditional in my country with those that I think are popular in many
Furnishings countries around the world.
I like to furnish my home with traditional items from my culture more than with furnishings that I think are popular in
many countries around the world.
I am not sure that I like my country’s traditional furnishings or furnishings that I think are popular in many countries
around the world.
I prefer to wear clothing that I think is popular in many countries around the world rather than clothing traditionally
worn in my own country.
It is not difficult for me to alternate or mix clothing choices so that I wear clothing that I think is popular in many
Clothing countries around the world.
I would rather wear clothing that is traditionally popular in my own country than clothing that I think is popular with
consumers in many countries around the world.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about traditional clothing from my country or clothing that is preferred by
consumers in other countries, I am not interested in clothing.
I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many countries around the world more than my own country’s traditional
foods.
I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods as well as foods that I think are popular in many countries around the
Food world.
I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods more than foods that I think are popular in many countries around the
world.
I don’t really enjoy my own country’s traditional foods, nor do I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many
countries around the world.
Answer Format: In each category pick the best fit
Self-identification with global consumer culture (Cleveland and Laroche 2007)

The way that I dress is influenced by the advertising activities of foreign or global companies.
Advertising by foreign or global brands has a strong influence on my clothing choices.
I pay attention to the fashions worn by people in my age group that live in other countries.
I try to pattern my lifestyle, way of dressing, etc. to be a global consumer.
I like reading magazines about the fashion, décor, and trends in other countries.
I prefer to wear clothing that I think is popular in many countries around the world rather than clothing traditionally worn in my own country.
I actively seek to buy products that are not only thought of as local.
I identify with famous international brand.
59
Attitude towards Global Products AGP (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010)

I enjoy entertainment that I think is popular in many countries around the world more than traditional entertainment
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
Entertainment 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
I don’t enjoy most entertainment, whether it’s traditionally popular in my own country or popular in many countries
around the world.
I prefer to have home furnishings that I think are popular in many countries around the world rather than furnishings
that are considered as traditional in my own country.
I prefer mixing home furnishings that are traditional in my own country with furnishings that I think are popular in
Furnishings
I prefer to have home furnishings that I think are popular in many countries around the world.
I don’t really like my own country’s traditional home furnishings or furnishings that I think are popular in many
I like to wear clothing that I think is popular in many countries around the world more than clothing that is
traditionally popular in my own country.
I like to alternate or mix choices so that I wear clothing that is traditionally popular in my own country as well as
Clothing clothing that I think is popular in many countries around the world.
I like to wear clothing that is traditionally popular in my own country more than clothing that I think is popular in
I don’t care whether you’re talking about the traditional clothing in my own country or clothing that I think is popular
in many countries around the world, I am not interested in clothing.
I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many countries around the world more than my own country’s traditional
foods.
I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods as well as foods that I think are popular in many countries around the
Food world.
I enjoy my own country’s traditional foods more than foods that I think are popular in many countries around the
world.
I don’t really enjoy my own country’s traditional foods, nor do I enjoy foods that I think are popular in many
I prefer to have a lifestyle that I think is similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around the world
rather than the traditional lifestyle in my own country.
I prefer that blend the traditional lifestyle in my own country with a lifestyle that I think is similar to the lifestyle of
Lifestyle consumers in many countries around the world.
I prefer to have a lifestyle that is traditional in my own country rather than one that It think is similar to the lifestyle of
consumer in many countries around the world.
To be honest, I don’t find the traditional lifestyle in my own country or the consumer lifestyle that is similar in many
countries around the world very interesting.
I prefer to buy brands that I think are bought by consumers in many countries around the world rather than local
brands that are sold only in my country.
I prefer to buy both local brands that are sold only in my country and brands that I think are bought by consumers in
Brands many countries around the world.
I prefer to buy local brands that are sold only in my country rather than brands that I think are bought by consumers in
I couldn’t care less about the countries associated with any brand; brand names mean nothing me.
Answer Format: In each category pick the best fit
60
Susceptibility to Global Consumer Culture (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008)

Global Brands….
It makes one feel good in his/her social group.
Conformity to It makes one have the sense of global belonging.
consumption trend It makes one have a good impression of others.
It makes one feel close to contemporary lifestyle.
It has very high quality image.
It has a very high level of reliability.
Quality perception
It is associated with the latest technology.
It is associated with long-lasting quality.
It signifies one’s trend image.
It represents the latest lifestyles.
Social prestige
It symbolizes one’s social image.
It is associated with the symbol of prestige.
Answer format: 6-Point Likert 1= “strongly disagree” to 6= “strongly agree”
Belief in Global Citizenship through Global Brands (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008)
1. Buying global brands makes me feel like a citizen of the world.
2. Purchasing global brands make me feel part of something bigger.
3. Buying global brands give me a sense of belong to the global marketplace.
Global Citizenship (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012b)

Feeling like a part of the global world is important to me.
Importance of
It is important to me to feel a part of the global world.
Global Citizenship
Participation in the global world is important to me.
to consumers
I value my citizenship in the global world.
I feel that I am related to everyone in the world as if they were my family.
Identity
I feel like I am “next-door neighbours” with people living in other parts of the world.
Global Citizenship Buying global brands makes me feel like a citizen of the world.
through global Purchasing global brands make me feel part of something bigger.
brands Buying global brands give me a sense of belonging to the global marketplace.
Global/Glocal Cultural Identity + Global Connectedness (Strizhakova and Coulter 2013; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a)
Global: It is important for me to have a lifestyle that I think is similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries
Measures of the
around the world rather than one that is more unique to or traditional in (my country).
Lifestyle
Glocal: I try to blend a lifestyle that is considered unique or traditional in (my country) with one that I think is
orientation of
similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around the world.
global cultural
Local: It is more important for me to have a lifestyle that is unique to or traditional in (my country) rather than one
identity (Alden,
that I think is similar to the lifestyle of consumers in many countries around the world.
Steenkamp, and
Alienated: to be honest, I do not find the typical lifestyle in (my country) or the lifestyle of consumers in other
Batra 2006)
countries very interesting.
Global: I prefer to buy brands that I think are bought by consumers in many counties around the world rather than
Measures of the local brands that are sold in only (my country).
brand orientation Glocal: I prefer to buy both local brands that are sold only in (my country) and brands that I think are bought by
of global cultural consumers in many countries around the world.
identity (Steenkamp Local: I prefer to buy local brands that are sold only in (my country) rather than brands that I think are bought by
and de Jong 2010) consumers in many countries around the world,” .
Alienated: I couldn't care less about the countries associated with any brand; brand names mean nothing tome.
I have a strong attachment to the global world.
Global I feel connected to the global world.
Connectedness I think of myself as a global citizen.
(Cameron 2004; It is important to me to feel a part of the global world.
Russell and Russell Thinking about my identity, I view myself as a global citizen.
2009) Feeling like a citizen of the world is important to me.
I would describe myself as a global citizen.
61
SCALE DEVELOPMENT & EMPIRICAL VALIDATION OF POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS
Appendix C: Scale Development Procedures of Positive Consumer Dispositions in Original Publication1
Predictive
Item Replication in
Conceptual Face Discriminant validity / Invariance
Generation / Dimensionality Reliability Analysis multiple
Definition validity Validity nomological testing
Scale Author(s) Purification countries
validation
Internal Test-
EFA CFA
Consistency retest
Xenophilia Perlmutter 1954           
Worldmindedness Sampson and Smith 1957           
Kosterman and Feshbach

Internationalism           
1989
(Consumer)
Hett 1993           
Worldmindedness
Sharma, Shimp, and Shin

Cultural Openness           
1995
Global Openness Suh and Kwon 2002           
Spears, Parker, and

Globalization Attitude           
McDonald 2004
Global Consumption Alden, Steenkamp, and

          
Orientation2 Batra 2006
Openness to and
Cleveland and Laroche
Desire to Emulate           
2007
GCC
Self-identification with
Global Consumer           
2007
Culture
Cosmopolitanism 2007; Cleveland, Laroche,           
and Papadopoulos 2009
(Consumer)
Nijssen and Douglas 2008           
Worldmindedness
Globalization Attitude Suh and Smith 2008           

62
Predictive
Item Replication in
Conceptual Face Discriminant validity / Invariance
Generation / Dimensionality Reliability Analysis multiple
Definition validity Validity nomological testing
Scale Author(s) Purification countries
validation
Internal Test-
EFA CFA
Consistency retest
Susceptibility to
Zhou, Teng, and Poon
Global Consumer           
2008
Culture
Strizhakova, Coulter, and
Global citizenship           
Price 2008
Identification with the

Westjohn et al. 2009           
Global Community
Attitudes toward Steenkamp and de Jong

          
Global Products2 2010
Oberecker and
Consumer Affinity           
Diamantopoulos 2011
(Consumer)
Lawrence 2012           
Xenocentrism
Wongtada, Rice, and

Consumer Affinity           
Bandyopadhyay 2012
(Consumer) Riefler, Diamantopoulos,

          
Cosmopolitanism and Siguaw 2012
(Consumer)
Saran and Kalliny 2012           
Cosmopolitanism
Tu, Khare, and Zhang

Global Identity           
2012

Global Citizenship           
Price 2012b
Global/Glocal Cultural
Price 2012a; Strizhakova           
identity
and Coulter 2013
(Consumer)
Altintas et al. 2013           
Cosmopolitanism
Strizhakova and Coulter

Global Connectedness           
2013
Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset

Consumer Affinity           
2014
1
For additional scale-validation information in follow-up publications, see Appendix D, E, F.
2
Forced-choice measure; traditional scale-development procedures do not apply.
63
Appendix D: Discriminant Validity Evidence1

General Scope / Country Consumption Scope /
General Scope / Global Frame Consumption Scope / Global Frame
Frame Country Frame
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) Sources
(1) Xenophilia                    (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011)
(2) Internationalism                    (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011)

(3) Global Openness      a   c           (Altintas et al. 2013; Suh and Smith 2008)
(Saran and Kalliny 2012; Strizhakova,
(4) Cultural Openness      b              Coulter, and Price 2008)
(5) Consumer Affinity                    (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011)
(Altintas et al. 2013; Carpenter et al. 2012;
Cleveland and Laroche 2007; Cleveland et
(6) (Consumer)
Cosmopolitanism   ab     d  f  e d d    e al. 2015; Riefler 2012; Riefler,
Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012; Saran
and Kalliny 2012; Westjohn et al. 2009)
(7) (Consumer)
Worldmindedness                    -
(8) (Consumer)
Xenocentrism                    (Lawrence 2012)
(9) Globalization
Attitude   c   d, g        g g     (Riefler 2012; Suh and Smith 2008)
(10) Global Identity                    (Guo 2013; Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012)
(11) Identification with
the Global      f              (Westjohn et al. 2009)
Community
(12) Global
Connectedness                    -
(13) Openness to and (Carpenter et al. 2012; Cleveland and
Desire to Emulate      e              Laroche 2007; Cleveland et al. 2015)
GCC
(14) Global Consumption (Guo 2013; Riefler 2012; Tu, Khare, and
Orientation      d   g           Zhang 2012)
(15) Attitude towards
Global/Local      d   g           (Riefler 2012)
Products
(16) Susceptibility to
Global Consumer                    -
Culture
(17) Citizenship (through
Global Brands)                    (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008)
(18) Global/Glocal
Cultural Identity                    -
(19) Self-identification (Carpenter et al. 2012; Cleveland and
with GCC      e              Laroche 2007; Cleveland et al. 2015)
1Original and subsequent articles; empty cells indicate that dispositions have not been subjected to formal discriminant validity tests
aAs measured by CONCOS Scale; b as measured by COSMOSCALE; c as measured by Suh and Smith (2008); d as measured by C-COSMO scale; e as measured by COS Scale; f as measured by CYMYC Scale; g as measured by Spears,
Parker, and McDonald (2004).
64
Appendix E: Antecedents of Positive Consumer Dispositions1

Disposition Socio-demographics Past Experience Consumer Characteristics Cultural Factors Source
Xenophilia Experience abroad (C) (+) Being a communist (C) (+) - (Perlmutter 1954)
Knowledge of international affairs (E) Being a democrat (C) (+)

(Crowson 2009; Karasawa 2002;
Internationalism (+) News exposure (E) (+) Social-dominance orientation (E) (-) -
Kosterman and Feshbach 1989)
Education (C) (+) Right-wing authoritarianism (E) (-)
Global Openness - - Attitude toward globalization (E) (+) - (Suh and Smith 2008)
Cultural Openness - Cross-cultural interaction (C) (+) - - (Durvasula and Lysonski 2008)
Stay abroad (C) (+)

Travel to foreign country (C) (+)
Culture of foreign country (C) (+/-) (Oberecker, Riefler, and
Consumer Affinity - Contact with foreign country (C) (+) -
Lifestyle of foreign country (C) (+) Diamantopoulos 2008)
Scenery of foreign country (C) (+)
Benevolence (E) (+)

Universalism (E) (+) (Altintas et al. 2013; Cannon
Social-status seeking (C) (+) Self-direction (E) (+) and Yaprak 2002; Cleveland et
Normative influence (E) (-) Power distance (E) (-) al. 2011; Cleveland, Laroche,
Age (E) (-) Travel experience (E) (+) Informational influence (E) (+) Security (E) (-) and Papadopoulos 2009;
(Consumer) Income (C) (+) Expatriate stay (C) (+) Risk aversion (E) (-) Affective autonomy (E) (+) Hannerz 1990; Janssens and
Cosmopolitanism Education (E) (+) Cross-cultural training (C) (+) Global openness (E) (+) Intellectual autonomy (E) (+) Steyaert 2014; Lee, Lee, and
Urban living (E) (+) Cross-cultural interaction (C) (+) Consumer innovativeness (E) (+) Egalitarianism (E) (+) Lee 2014; Riefler and
Long-term orientation (C) (+) Harmony (E) (+) Diamantopoulos 2009; Riefler,
Openness to differences (C) (+) Individualism (E) (+) Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw
Conservatism (E) (-) 2012)
Masculinity (E) (-)
Interest in politics (C) (+)
Age (E) (+) Travel to foreign cultures (E) (+) (Kagitcibasi 1978; Nijssen and
(Consumer)
Female (E) (+) International social network (E) (+) Openness to new ideas (C) (+) - Douglas 2008; Sampson and
Worldmindedness
Education (E) (+) Sojourn abroad (E) (+) Smith 1957)
(Consumer) Contact with out-group (C) (+) (Kent and Burnight 1951;
Age (C) (-) Consumer ethnocentrism (C) (-) -
Xenocentrism Knowledge of other cultures (C) (+) Mueller and Broderick 2009)
65
Disposition Socio-demographics Past Experience Consumer Characteristics Cultural Factors Source

Globalization (Spears, Parker, and McDonald
- Locus of Control (E) (-) -
Attitude 2004)
Global Identity - - - - -
General Scope / Global Frame
Identification with (Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997;

Cultural diversity (C) (+)
the Global - Openness to experience (E) (+) - Westjohn, Singh, and
Ethnic diversity (C) (+)
Community Magnusson 2012)
Global
- - - -
Connectedness
Power distance (C) (-)
Uncertainty avoidance (C) (-)
Masculinity (C) (-)
Individualism (C) (+)
Openness to and (Cleveland and Laroche 2007;
Long-term orientation (C) (+)
Desire to Emulate Religion (E) (+) - - Cleveland, Laroche, and Hallab
Conformity (E) (-)
GCC 2013)
Tradition (E) (-)
Power distance (E) (+
Stimulation (E) (+)
Hedonism (E) (+))
Global Materialism (E) (+)
Mass-media exposure (E) (+) (Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra
Consumption - Susceptibility to normative influence (E) (- -
Mass-migration exposure (E) (+) 2006)
Orientation )
Age (E) (-) Traditional/secular-rational (E) (+)
Materialism (E) (+)
Attitude toward Female (E) (+) Survival/self-expression (E) (-)
Innovativeness (E) (+)
Global/Local Education (E) (+) - Stimulation (E) (+) (Steenkamp and de Jong 2010)
Consumer ethnocentrism (E) (-)
Products Social class (E) (+) Power distance (E) (+)
Nostalgia (E) (-)
Household size (E) (-) Universalism (E) (+)
Global mass media (C) (+)

Susceptibility to Tourism (C) (+)
Global Consumer - Immigration (C) (+) - - (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008)
Culture Exposure to pop culture (C) (+)
Exposure to global marketing (C) (+)
Global Citizenship Exposure to global brands (C) (+) (Gammoh et al. 2014;
Consumer ethnocentrism (E) (+)
(through Global - Perceived quality of global brands (E) (+) - Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price
Cultural openness (E) (+)
Brands) Social prestige of global brands (E) (+) 2008)
(Strizhakova and Coulter 2013;
Global / Glocal
Age (C) (-) - - - Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price
Cultural Identity
2012a)
Power distance (C) (-)
Uncertainty Avoidance (C) (-)
Masculinity (C) (-)
Individualism (C) (+)
Self-identification (Cleveland and Laroche 2007;
Long Term Orientation (C) (+)
with global Religion (E) (+) Cleveland, Laroche, and Hallab
Conformity (E) (-)
consumer culture 2013)
Tradition (E) (-)
Power distance (E) (+)
Stimulation (E) (+)
Hedonism (E) (+)
(E) empirically tested; (C) conceptually proposed; (+) positive impact hypothesized; (-) negative impact hypothesized
1
Empty cells indicate a lack of empirical of/and conceptual propositions regarding possible antecedents
66
Appendix F: Marketing-related Outcomes of Positive Consumer Dispositions

Consumption/
Evaluation Attitude Purchase Intentions
Ownership
Outcome Variables Sources
Global Foreign Global GCCP/ Global Foreign Global Foreign
Products Products Products FCCP** Products Products Products Products
Xenophilia + (Kesic, Piri Rahj, and Vlasic 2005)

Internationalism +(a) +(b) (Shoham et al. 2006; Tian and Pasadeos 2012)
Global Openness + (Russell, Russell, and Neijens 2011)
Cultural Openness + (d'Astous et al. 2008)
(Nes, Yelkur, and Silkoset 2014; Oberecker and Diamantopoulos 2011; Wongtada, Rice,
Consumer Affinity +(c) +(c) and Bandyopadhyay 2012)
(Alden et al. 2013; Cleveland, Laroche, and Hallab 2013; Cleveland, Laroche, and
Papadopoulos 2009; Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2015; Cleveland,
(Consumer) +(c,d)/
Cosmopolitanism
+ + ns(d) +(c,d) +/ns (d) Papadopoulos, and Laroche 2011; Jin et al. 2015; Lim and Park 2013; Riefler,
ns(d) Diamantopoulos, and Siguaw 2012; Saran and Kalliny 2012; Zeugner-Roth, Žabkar, and
Diamantopoulos 2015)
(Consumer) (Crawford and Lamb 1982; Lee and Chen 2008; Nijssen and Douglas 2011; Rawwas,
Worldmindedness
+/ns + +/ns(c) Rajendran, and Wuehrer 1996)
(Consumer)
-1
Xenocentrism
1
At the time of writing no empirical evidence regarding the impact on consumer responses was available
67
Consumption/
Evaluation Attitude Purchase Intentions
Ownership
Outcome Variables Sources
Global Foreign Global GCCP/ Global Foreign Global Foreign
Products Products Products FCCP** Products Products Products Products
Globalization
Attitude
+(d) +(c,e) (Riefler 2012)
General Scope / Global Frame
(Guo 2013; Magnusson, Westjohn, and Zdravkovic 2015; Tu, Khare, and Zhang 2012;
Global Identity + Zhang and Khare 2009)
Identification with
the Global + (Bartikowski and Walsh 2015; Westjohn, Singh, and Magnusson 2012)
Community
Global
Connectedness + (Strizhakova and Coulter 2015)
Openness to and
(Cleveland, Laroche, and Hallab 2013; Cleveland et al. 2015; Sobol, Cleveland, and
Desire to Emulate +/ns(d) Laroche 2009)
GCC
Global
(Alden, Steenkamp, and Batra 2006; Guo 2013; Riefler 2012; Riefler, Diamantopoulos, and
Consumption +(c) +(d) +(c,d) Siguaw 2012)

Orientation
Attitude toward
Global/Local + + (Riefler 2012)
Products
Susceptibility to
Global Consumer + (Zhou, Teng, and Poon 2008)
Culture
Global Citizenship
(through Global +(f) +(g) +(c) (Gammoh, Koh, and Okoroafo 2011; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2011)
Brands)
Global / Glocal
Cultural Identity + (Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2012a)
Self-identification
(Cleveland, Laroche, and Hallab 2013; Cleveland, Laroche, and Papadopoulos 2015;
with Global +/ns(d) Cleveland et al. 2015; Sobol, Cleveland, and Laroche 2009)
Consumer Culture
* Only direct effects on outcome variables (c) general assessment across product categories
** GCCP…global consumer-culture positioning; FCCP…foreign consumer-culture positioning (d) product-category specific assessment (i.e.. food, media, music)
+ positive and significant relationship; ns.: not significant; (+/-) mixed findings (e) In Riefler (2012), the positive direct effect of GA on intentions was found for foreign global brands only.
(a) Mediate through economic animosity (positive total effect) (f) Belief in Global Citizenship moderates the effect of positioning strategy and brand attitude.
(b) Mediate through quality signal (g) Belief in Global Citizenship moderates the effect of positioning strategy and purchase intentions.
68
REFERENCES
Alden, Dana L., James B. Kelley, Petra Riefler, Julie A. Lee, and Geoffrey N. Soutar (2013), "The Effect
of Global Company Animosity on Global Brand Attitudes in Emerging and Developed Markets: Does
Perceived Value Matter?," Journal of International Marketing, 21 (2), 17-38.
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.
Altintas, Hakan M., Kurtulmusoglu, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, Talha Harcar, and Neriman Gundogan
(2013), "The Development and Validation of a Consumer Cosmopolitan ISM Scale: The Polar Opposite
of Xenophobic Attitudes," Ekonomska Istrazivanja- Economic Research, 26 (1), 137-54.
Bartikowski, Boris and Gianfranco Walsh (2015), "Attitude Toward Cultural Diversity: A Test of
Identity-Related Antecedents and Purchasing Consequences," Journal of Business Research, 68 (3), 526-
33.
Cameron, James E. (2004), "A Three-Factor Model of Social Identity," Self and Identity, 3 (3), 239-62.
Cannon, Hugh M. and Attila Yaprak (2002), "Will the Real-World Citizen Please Stand Up! The Many
Faces of Cosmopolitan Consumer Behavior," Journal of International Marketing, 10 (4), 30-52.
Carpenter, Jason, Marguerite Moore, Anne Marie Doherty, and Nicholas Alexander (2012),
"Acculturation to the Global Consumer Culture: A Generational Cohort Comparison," Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 20 (5), 411-23.
Cleveland, Mark, Seçil Erdoğan, Gülay Arıkan, and Tuğça Poyraz (2011), "Cosmopolitanism, Individual-
Level Values and Cultural-Level Values: A Cross-Cultural Study," Journal of Business Research, 64 (9),
934-43.
Cleveland, Mark and Michel Laroche (2007), "Acculturation to the Global Consumer Culture: Scale
Development and Research Paradigm," Journal of Business Research, 60 (3), 249-59.
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, and Ranim Hallab (2013), "Globalization, Culture, Religion, and
Values: Comparing Consumption Patterns of Lebanese Muslims and Christians," Journal of Business
Research, 66 (8), 958-67.
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos (2009), "Cosmopolitanism, Consumer
Ethnocentrism, and Materialism: An Eight-Country Study of Antecedents and Outcomes," Journal of
---- (2015), "You Are What You Speak? Globalization, Multilingualism, Consumer Dispositions and
Consumption," Journal of Business Research, 68 (3), 542-52.
69
Cleveland, Mark, Michel Laroche, Ikuo Takahashi, and Seçil Erdoğan (2014), "Cross-Linguistic
Validation of a Unidimensional Scale for Cosmopolitanism," Journal of Business Research, 67 (3), 268-
77.
Cleveland, Mark, Nicolas Papadopoulos, and Michel Laroche (2011), "Identity, Demographics, and
Consumer Behavior: International Market Segmentation across Product Categories," International
Cleveland, Mark, José I. Rojas-Méndez, Michel Laroche, and Nicolas Papadopoulos (2015), "Identity,
Culture, Dispositions and Behavior: A Cross-National Examination of Globalization and Culture
Change," Journal of Business Research, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.025.
Crawford, John C. and Chrales W. Lamb (1982), "Effect of Worldmindedness among Professional
Buyers Upon Their Willigness to Buy Foreign Products," Psychological Reports, 50 (3), 859-62.
Crowson, H. Michael (2009), "Nationalism, Internationalism, and Perceived UN Irrelevance: Mediators

of Relationships between Authoritarianism and Support for Military Aggression as Part of the War on
Terror," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1137-62.
d'Astous, Alain, Zannie Giraud Voss, François Colbert, Antonella Carù, Marylouise Caldwell, and
François Courvoisier (2008), "Product-Country Images in the Arts: A Multi-Country Study,"
Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Yolanda Ruiz (1997), "Affective Bicultural and Global-Human Identity
Scales for Mexican-American Adolescents," Psychological Reports, 80 (3), 1027-39.
Durvasula, Srinivas and Steven Lysonski (2008), "How Offshore Outsourcing Is Perceived: Why Do
Some Consumers Feel More Threatened?," Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21 (1), 17-33.
Gammoh, Bashar S., Anthony C. Koh, and Sam C. Okoroafo (2011), "Consumer Culture Brand
Positioning Strategies: An Experimental Investigation," Journal of Product & Brand Management, 20
(1), 48-57.
Guo, Xiaoling (2013), "Living in a Global World: Influence of Consumer Global Orientation on Attitudes
Toward Global Brands from Developed Versus Emerging Countries," Journal of International
Marketing, 21 (1), 1-22.
Hannerz, Ulf (1990), "Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture," Theory, Culture & Society, 7 (2),
237-51.
Hett, Jane (1993), "The Development of an Instrument to Measure Global-Mindedness," doctoral

dissertation, University of San Diego, San Diego, California, USA.
Janssens, Maddy and Chris Steyaert (2014), "Re-Considering Language within a Cosmopolitan
Understanding: Toward a Multilingual Franca Approach in International Business Studies," Journal of
International Business Studies, 45 (5), 623-39.
70
Jin, Zhongqi, Richard Lynch, Samaa Attia, Bal Chansarkar, Tanses Gülsoy, Paul Lapoule, Xueyuan Liu,
William Newburry, Mohamad Sheriff Nooraini, Ronaldo Parente, Keyoor Purani, and Marius Ungerer
(2015), "The Relationship between Consumer Ethnocentrism, Cosmopolitanism and Product Country
Image among Younger Generation Consumers: The Moderating Role of Country Development Status,"
International Business Review, 24 (3), 380-93.
Kagitcibasi, Cigdim (1978), "Cross-National Encounters: Turkish Students in the United States,"
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2 (2), 141-60.
Karasawa, Minoru (2002), "Patriotism, Nationalism, and Internationalism among Japanes Citizens: An
Etic-Emic Approach," Political Psychology, 23 (4), 645-66.
Kent, Donald P. and Robert G. Burnight (1951), "Group Centrism in Complex Societies," American
Journal of Sociology, 57 (3), 256-59.
Kesic, Tanja, Suncana Piri Rahj, and Goran Vlasic (2005), "The Influence of Animosity, Xenophilia, and
Ethnocentric Tendencies on Consumers' Willigness to Buy Foreign Products (the Case of Croatia),"
presented at the 34th EMAC Conference: Rejuvenating Marketing - Contamination, Innovation,
Integration. Milan, Italy.
Kosterman, Rick and Seymour Feshbach (1989), "Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic
Attitudes," Political Psychology, 10 (2), 257-74.
Lawrence, Steven J. (2012), "Consumer Xenocentrism and Consumer Cosmopolitanism: The

Development and Validation of Scales of Constructs Influencing Attitudes Towards Foreign Product
Consumption," doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Lee, Kyung Tae, You-Il Lee, and Richard Lee (2014), "Economic Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism: A
Study of Interpersonal Antecedents and Differential Outcomes," European Journal of Marketing, 48
(5/6), 1133-58.
Lee, Tien-Shang and Feng-Fu Chen (2008), "Country Image Effect on Taiwanese Consumers'
Willingness to Buy from Neighboring Countries," International Journal of Commerce and Management,
18 (2), 166-83.
Lim, Heejin and Jee-Sun Park (2013), "The Effects of National Culture and Cosmopolitanism on
Consumers’ Adoption of Innovation: A Cross-Cultural Comparison," Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 25 (1), 16-28.
Magnusson, Peter, Stanford A. Westjohn, and Srdan Zdravkovic (2015), "An Examination of the
Interplay between Corporate Social Responsibility, the Brand’s Home Country, and Consumer Global
Identification," International Marketing Review, 32 (6), 663-85.
Mueller, Rene Dentiste and Amanda J. Broderick (2009), "Consumer Xenocentrism: An Alternative
Explanation for Foreign Product Bias," Unpublished Working Paper, College and University of
Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
71
Nes, Erik Bertin, Rama Yelkur, and Ragnhild Silkoset (2014), "Consumer Affinity for Foreign Countries:
Construct Development, Buying Behavior Consequences and Animosity Contrasts," International
Business Review, 23 (4), 774-84.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2008), "Consumer World-Mindedness, Social-Mindedness, and
Store Image," Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3), 84-107.
---- (2011), "Consumer World-Mindedness and AttitudesToward Product Positioning in Advertising: An

Examination of Global Versus Foreign Versus Local Positioning," Journal of International Marketing, 19
(3), 113-33.
Oberecker, Eva M. and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2011), "Consumers' Emotional Bonds with Foreign
Countries: Does Consumer Affinity Affect Behavioral Intentions?," Journal of International Marketing,
19 (2), 45-72.
Oberecker, Eva M., Petra Riefler, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2008), "The Consumer Affinity
Construct: Conceptualization, Qualitative Investigation, and Research Agenda," Journal of International
Marketing, 16 (3), 23-56.
Perlmutter, Howard (1954), "Some Characteristics of the Xenophilic Personality," The Journal of
Psychology, 38 (2), 291-300.
Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A., K.N. Rajendran, and Gerhard A. Wuehrer (1996), "The Influence of
Worldmindedness and Nationalism on Consumer Evaluation of Domestic and Foreign Products,"
Riefler, Petra (2012), "Why Consumers Do (Not) Like Global Brands: The Role of Globalization
Attitude, GCO and Global Brand Origin," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 25-34.
Riefler, Petra and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2009), "Consumer Cosmopolitanism: Review and
Replication of the CYMYC Scale," Journal of Business Research, 62 (4), 407-19.
Riefler, Petra, Adamantios Diamantopoulos, and Judy A. Siguaw (2012), "Cosmopolitan Consumers as a
Target Group for Segmentation," Journal of International Business Studies, 43 (3), 285-305.
Russell, Cristel Antonia, Dale W. Russell, and Peter C. Neijens (2011), "Consumption Expressions of
Ideological Resistance," European Journal of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1715-24.
Russell, Dale W. and Cristel Antonia Russell (2009), "Here or There? Consumer Reactions to Corporate
Social Responsibility Initiatives: Egocentric Tendencies and Their Moderators," Marketing Letters, 21
(1), 65-81.
Sampson, Donald L. and Howard P. Smith (1957), "A Scale to Measure World-Minded Attitudes," The
Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1), 99-106.
Saran, Anshu and Morris Kalliny (2012), "Cosmopolitanism: Concept and Measurement," Journal of
Global Marketing, 25 (5), 282-91.
72
Sharma, Subhash, Terence A. Shimp, and Jeongshin Shin (1995), "Consumer Ethnocentrism: A Test of
Antecedents and Moderators," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23 (1), 26-37.
Shoham, Aviv, Moshe Davidow, Jill G. Klein, and Ayalla Ruvio (2006), "Animosity on the Home Front:
The Intifada in Israel and Its Impact on Consumer Behavior," Journal of International Marketing, 14 (3),
92-114.
Sobol, Kamila, Mark Cleveland, and Michel Laroche (2009), "Globalization, Culture and Consumption
Behavior: An Empirical Study of Dutch Consumers," presented at the 2009 Cross-Cultural Research
Conference. Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Spears, Martha C., Darrel F. Parker, and Michael McDonald (2004), "Globalization Attitudes and Locus
of Control," Journal of Global Business, 15 (29), 57-66.
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
(November), 18-40.
Strizhakova, Yuliya and Robin A. Coulter (2013), "The “Green” Side of Materialism in Emerging BRIC
and Developed Markets: The Moderating Role of Global Cultural Identity," International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 30 (1), 69-82.
---- (2015), "Drivers of Local Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Approach," Journal of
Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin A. Coulter, and Linda Price (2008), "Branded Products as a Passport to
Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Developed and Developing Countries," Journal of International
Marketing, 16 (4), 57-85.
---- (2011), "Branding in a Global Marketplace: The Mediating Effects of Quality and Self-Identity Brand
Signals," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (4), 342-51.
---- (2012a), "The Young Adult Cohort in Emerging Markets: Assessing Their Glocal Cultural Identity in
a Global Marketplace," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 43-54.
---- (2012b), "Response of Global Citizens to Cause-Related Green Marketing." Unpublished Working
Paper, Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA.
Suh, Taewon and Ik-Whan G. Kwon (2002), "Globalization and Reluctant Buyers," International
Suh, Taewon and Karen H. Smith (2008), "Attitude Toward Globalization and Country-of-Origin
Evaluations: Toward a Dynamic Theory," Journal of Global Marketing, 21 (2), 127-39.
Tian, Song and Yorgo Pasadeos (2012), "A Revised Model of Animosity: The Impact of Anti-Japanese
Sentiment on Consumer Behavior in China," Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 33 (2),
170-91.
73
Tu, Lingjiang, Adwait Khare, and Yinlong Zhang (2012), "A Short 8-Item Scale for Measuring
Consumers’ Local–Global Identity," International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (1), 35-42.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Mark J. Arnold, Peter Magnusson, Srdan Zdravkovic, and Joyce Xin Zhou (2009),
"Technology Readiness and Usage: A Global-Identity Perspective," Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 37 (3), 250-65.
Westjohn, Stanford A., Nitish Singh, and Peter Magnusson (2012), "Responsiveness to Global and Local
Consumer Culture Positioning: A Personality and Collective Identity Perspective," Journal of
Wongtada, Nittaya, Gillian Rice, and Subir K. Bandyopadhyay (2012), "Developing and Validating
AFFINITY: A New Scale to Measure Consumer Affinity toward Foreign Countries," Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 24 (3), 147-67.
Yoon, Sun-Joon, Hugh M. Cannon, and Attila Yaprak (1996), “A Cross-Cultural Study of the
Cosmopolitan Construct: Validation of a New Cosmopolitanism Scale,” paper presented at the 1996
Annual Conference of the Academy of International Business, Banff, Alberta (September), Canada.
Zeugner-Roth, Katharina Petra, Vesna Žabkar, and Adamantios Diamantopoulos (2015), "Consumer
Ethnocentrism, National Identity, and Consumer Cosmopolitanism as Drivers of Consumer Behavior: A
Social Identity Theory Perspective," Journal of International Marketing, 23 (2), 25-54.
Zhang, Yinlong and Adwait Khare (2009), "The Impact of Accessible Identities on the Evaluation of
Global Versus Local Products," Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (3), 524-37.
Zhou, Lianxi, Lefa Teng, and Patrick S. Poon (2008), "Susceptibility to Global Consumer Culture: A
Three-Dimensional Scale," Psychology and Marketing, 25 (4), 336-51.

A Taxonomy and Review of Positive Consumer Dispositions Toward Foreign Countries and Globalization

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Taxonomy and Review of Positive Consumer Dispositions Toward Foreign Countries and Globalization

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

© 2015, American Marketing Association

A taxonomy and review of positive consumer dispositions toward

foreign countries and globalization

A taxonomy and review of positive consumer dispositions toward

foreign countries and globalization

International marketing research has shown vivid interest in consumers’ positive

dispositions toward foreign countries and globalization. Motivated by the aim to

plethora of constructs and measurement instruments to capture such dispositions.

However, the current state of literature is problematic because of an unsorted range of

constructs with overlapping conceptualizations, diverse operationalizations, and

fragmented empirical findings regarding their impact on consumer responses. This

makes an informed choice on which construct(s) to employ in substantive research

literature by (a) developing a conceptual taxonomy of positive consumer dispositions

highlighting their similarities and unique features, (b) undertaking a comprehensive

review of the relevant conceptualizations and operationalizations, and (c) providing

guidance for future research on positive dispositions, including antecedents, response

variables, potential mediating and moderating influences. To move substantive

comprising antecedents, causal sequences of dispositions, effects on consumer

response variables, and potential boundary conditions.

Keywords: International market segmentation, positive dispositions, foreign countries,

globalization, literature review, taxonomy

International marketing researchers have shown vivid interest in consumers’ dispositions,

should subsequently assist companies in better segmenting and targeting international

and Diamantopoulos 2015).

example, Shankarmahesh (2006) and Riefler and Diamantopoulos (2007)). In comparison,

constructs, aiming to capture positive dispositions toward foreign countries and/or

globalization. Exemplary dispositions are global consumption orientation (Alden, Steenkamp,

Douglas 2008), to name a few. An increase in substantive research incorporating these

consumer responses toward foreign or global products.

orientations or attitudes, resulting in considerable ambiguity and a lack of consensus

dispositions suffer from a lack of clear conceptual development and/or problematic

measurement validation. Third, literature frequently neglects to conceptually or empirically

substantive findings regarding the influence of positive dispositions on consumer response

variables toward foreign and global products.

little literature is currently available (e.g., global connectedness, susceptibility to global

construct(s) to employ in substantive research (and why) extremely difficult. From a

as segmentation variables. In short, both researchers and practitioners currently confront a

lack guidance on how to best handle them.

synthesizing the existing range of dispositions, their conceptualizations, and measurement

article seeks to advance international marketing literature by (a) developing a conceptual

research on positive dispositions, including antecedents, response variables, as well as

conceptual development of positive dispositions, (b) facilitate the choice of relevant

development of a solid body of knowledge on the (relative) effects of positive dispositions on

assisting decision makers in making an informed choice of appropriate constructs for

segmentation and targeting purposes (Steenkamp and Ter Hofstede 2002).

as well as potential mediating and moderating influences. Finally, we provide a decision

REVIEW AND TAXONOMY OF POSITIVE DISPOSITIONS

We adopted a two-stage approach to identify relevant constructs capturing positive consumer

dispositions toward foreign countries or globalization. First, we conducted a multi-

disciplinary online literature review (including marketing, business, psychology, and

total of 19 constructs describing marketing-relevant dispositions (Table 1).[1] Second, using a

reference search across 22 marketing and international business journals[2], we identified

[Table 1 about here]

cosmopolitanism, xenocentrism) and psychology literatures (e.g., worldmindedness,

xenophilia). These constructs respectively describe individuals’ admiration of foreign groups

marketing literature focused almost exclusively on negative dispositions toward other

practitioners. Accordingly, we first attempt to categorize the 19 dispositions based on their

delineating conceptualizations and reviewing operationalization issues.

Taxonomy of Positive Dispositions

Based on their conceptual definitions (Table 1), we classify positive dispositions

context) versus consumption specific (i.e., directly relating to a consumption context).

Additionally, we use circles to highlight those constructs belonging to a similar conceptual