1 / 21

Welcome Effects of national culture on deal proneness: Evidence from USA, Thailand and Kenya

Welcome Effects of national culture on deal proneness: Evidence from USA, Thailand and Kenya Dr. Dheeraj Sharma, IIM-A, INDIA Dr. Satyendra Singh, University of Winnipeg, CANADA Dr. Shaheen Borna, Ball State University, USA s.singh@uwinnipeg.ca www.uwinnipeg.ca/~ssingh5. Outline.

emlyn
Télécharger la présentation

Welcome Effects of national culture on deal proneness: Evidence from USA, Thailand and Kenya

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WelcomeEffects of national culture on deal proneness: Evidence from USA, Thailand and Kenya Dr. Dheeraj Sharma, IIM-A, INDIA Dr. Satyendra Singh, University of Winnipeg, CANADA Dr. Shaheen Borna, Ball State University, USA s.singh@uwinnipeg.ca www.uwinnipeg.ca/~ssingh5

  2. Outline • Model, Definitions, and Theory • Hypotheses Development • Methodology • Data collection and Sample Characteristics • Analyses – Moderated Regression • Results • Conclusion • References 2

  3. The Model Control Variables -Age -Gender Store Image H2 National Culture -Power distance -Masculinity -Individualism -Uncertainty avoidance H1 Deal Proneness 3

  4. Definitions • National Culture • Power distance, Masculinity, Individualism and Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) • Store Image • Perception of store on salient attributes – service, pleasant place, shopping experience, quality merchandise (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998) • Deal Proneness • Getting some thing free, or paying lower price (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer and Burton, 1995) 4

  5. The Theories • Social Judgment Theory • Individuals view the world through the cultural lens and their belief are altered by their own perception of the world (Sherif and Hovland, 1961) • Meaning Movement Theory • Individuals draw socio-cultural meaning from in-store graphics, and assign the meaning to good and services (McCracken, 1986) 5

  6. Hypotheses • H1: ↑ PDI  ↓ DP • Power relates to status, so counter to deal proneness • H2: ↑ MAS  ↓ DP • Like saving $, but embarrassed to use coupons • H3: ↑ IND  ↑ DP • Can take risks on individual basis, so use more coupons • H4: ↑ UAI  ↓ DP • Avoid anxiety associated with deals, so avoid coupons • H5: ↑ PSI  ↑ Culture—DP • Feel good; cognitive and affect component -- + attitude, so trust the deal • PDI = Power distance index, MAS = Masculine, IND = individuality • UAI = Uncertainty avoidance index, DP = Deal proneness, PSI = Perceived store image 6

  7. Data Collection • Data Collection from 300 visitors approached in each mall • USA = 246 responses • Thailand = 231 responses • Kenya = 196 responses • Mall intercept method • Response rate: 75% 7

  8. Sample Characteristics • USA Thailand Kenya • Sample size (N = 673) 246 231 196 • Male 89 67 75 • Female 157 164 121 • Age (male) in years 44 37 41 • Age (female) in years 32 28 34 8

  9. Selection of Countries • USA Thailand Kenya • Power distance index 40 64 64 • Individualism 91 20 27 • Masculinity 62 34 41 • Uncertainty 46 64 52 9

  10. Reliability and validity – Power distance 10

  11. Reliability and validity – Masculinity 11

  12. Reliability and validity – Collectivism 12

  13. Reliability and validity – Uncertainty avoidance 13

  14. Reliability and validity – Deal Proneness 14

  15. Reliability and validity – Store Image 15

  16. Moderating Effects 17

  17. Store Image vs. Deal Proneness 18

  18. Conclusion • H1: ↑ PDI  ↓ DP • Partially supported: b=.32** (USA) • H2: ↑ MAS  ↓ DP • Partially supported: b=.29** (USA), .23* (Kenya) • H3: ↑ IND  ↑ DP • Partially supported: b=.31** (USA) • H4: ↑ UAI  ↓ DP • Supported: b=.27**(USA), .23**(Kenya), .24*(Thailand) • H5: ↑ PSI  ↑ Culture—DP • Supported except Thailand (b=.18, non significant) • PDI = Power distance index, MAS = Masculine, IND = individuality • UAI = Uncertainty avoidance index, DP = Deal proneness, PSI = Perceived store image 19

  19. References • Bloemer, Josee and Ko de Ruyter (1998), “On the Relationship between Store Image, Store Satisfaction and Store Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (5/6), 499-513. • Hofstede, Geert H. (1980), Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage Publications. • Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (1995), “Assessing the Domain Specificity of Deal Proneness: A Field Study,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 314- 326. • McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 71-84. • Sherif, Muzafir and Carl Hovland, (1961), Social Judgement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 20

  20. Thank you for gracing the presentation Questions?

More Related