Afive-country study

of
national identity
 OBJECTIVES
1. To develop and measure the national
identify of several different cultures

2. To establish initial generalizable

national identity norms for making
broad cross-cultural or cross-national
Five-country samples
1.United States of America (USA)
2.Mexico
3.Japan
4.Sweden
5.Hong Kong
National Identity
1. Cultural homogeneity
2. Belief structure
3. National heritage
4. Ethnocentrism
2 RESULTS OF FUNDAMENTAL
IMPORTANCE
1. nationalities and identify levels of reinforce
are placed on individual respondents
respective for national identities.

2. possible, through the measurement of the

NATID scale, to specify the aspects of
national identity which a given national
culture may emphasize
 MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE
ARTICLE
• Develop and measure the national identify of
several different cultures
• Unlike other study- specific criteria listed out
• USA- high relative national identity
• Sweden- weak relative national identity
• Japan, Hong Kong and Mexico- medium
relative national identity
Does the present
research share similar
line of argument with
previous studies?
 Present Studies
 focuson the different between culture and also identify
or establish culture similar and differences can be
placed into a particular applicable context for use in
making cross-cultural/cross-national comparisons.

 Previous Studies
 moregeneralizable understanding of the international
market environment
Previous Studies vs Present
Studies
 previous studies focus on the
identification the similar and differences
between culture and nations is less
valuable and useful

 present research has the important

placed by a given culture or nation on its
uniqueness and the specific elements
that define the uniqueness.

 Whereby the identify of uniqueness of

different countries helps to make the
business successful in other countries.
 The initial pool which is consist 114
items has been reduced to 17 items for
present studies.
 Although this cut-offs might be appear
somewhat arbitrary, but this cut-offs
helps saving more times and more
efficient.
 Present studies also provided means
and standard deviation for calculate the
either strong or weak national identity
and the NATID scale.
VALID EVIDENCE

Dimension of National Identity

VALID EVIDENCE
Initially, 114 items 70 items left
• Items generated using personal • At least 5 judges
out of 6 17 items left
interviews with international • 17 items is based on
marketing executives & review of considered the
item to be easily the analysis of Five
the existing internaitonal business
understandable & Samples (Hongkong,
literature.
theorectically Mexico, U.S, Japan
• Left 90 items due to redundancy.
relevant. and Sweden)
• The international marketing
• items were • Produce a
executives came from U.S, Japan,
modified & others theoretically sound,
Sweden, Mexico, Saudi Arabia,
were eliminated. manageable and
Hong Kong, Turkey, Germany and
practical scale.
France.

Objective of The eliminated items

Measurement Instrument could be used as
is to developing a more potential national
standardized approach identity indicators but it
which could applied in a may be impractical to
variety of setting. administer a larger
scale to respondents.
VALID EVIDENCE

• The process of establishing norms involves

assessing the total distribution of scores.
• This distribution is summarized by calculating a
mean and standard deviation for the group.
• Means and standard deviations help to identified the
national identity either strong or weak.
 UNDERSTANDING OF INTERNATIONAL MARKETING BY
THIS ARTICLE

 Different cultures and nations have a variety of

characteristics affecting the decision making
process.
 National identity has provides usable information
 Provides practical insights to the decision maker
 Successful in international markets are those
which can understand and utilize according
these differences to enjoy the competitive
advantage.
National Identity
Framework
HOW CAN WE
IMPROVE

THE
RESEARCH ?
 Undergone exhaustive research
 Formula of calculation is required
 Questionnaire and procedures must
be valid
 The validity of a method is
significant
 Study the variety of cultures