Global Brands in the United States: How Consumer Ethnicity Mediates the Global Brand Effect

Abstract

Previous cross-cultural research has demonstrated a consistently positive effect of brand globality on consumer perceptions, attitudes, and purchase intentions. The authors evaluate these effects on three ethnic segments of U.S. consumers. Drawing on survey data analysis and the estimates of a structural equation model, the research shows that associations with global brands as a general category vary across ethnic groups. Caucasian consumers show less of an appreciation of global brands, whereas African Americans and Hispanics show patterns similar to those in prior research. Although the average consumer views brand globality as an attribute of little importance, the structural equation findings show a direct effect of globality on attitudes and purchases. Overall, mainstream consumers in the United States are less favorable toward global brands than minority groups but patronize them at the same overall rate.

Why consumers do (not) like global brands: The role of globalization attitude, GCO and global brand origin

“…The latter is viewed as mediator between cognitive beliefs and subsequent behavioral intentions (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1997). In line with Ajzen and Fishbein's (1980) model, positive relationships from brand evaluation to brand attitude as well as from brand attitude to purchase intention are expected (see also Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, 2010). Fig.…”

Country‐of‐Origin and Social Resistance in Host Countries: The Case of a Chinese Firm

“…To also contribute to this line of research, we are interested in how COO induces local resistance to Chinese firms in a host country society. A COO can be associated with positive and negative biases simultaneously (Moeller, Harvey, Griffith, & Richey, ) and COO effects are not always equivalent across groups (Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, ). For example, the China COO may be favorable to some yet unfavorable to others.…”

The Relationship between Consumer Ethnocentrism, Cosmopolitanism and Product Country Image Among Younger Generation Consumers: The Moderating Role of Country Development Status

“…For this research, we have chosen two antecedents, namely Cosmopolitanism (COS) and Consumer Ethnocentrism (CET), for two reasons: first, because they relate to globalization strategy, which remains a topic of significant interest both academically and managerially (Dimitrovic & Vida, 2010;Dimofte, Johansson, & Bagozzi, 2010;Shimp & Sharma, 1987); second, because previous research studies, though not necessarily from the perspective of country development status, provide a useful benchmark for this paper (see for example, Cleveland et al, 2009;Kaynak & Kara, 2002;Klein et al, 2006;Sharma, 2011). From the perspective of the increased integration and globalization of consumer purchasing intentions, COS supports greater homogeneity while CET is more likely to be linked with greater heterogeneity (Cleveland et al, 2009;Riefler, Diamantopoulos, & Siguaw, 2012;Skrbis, Kendall, & Woodward, 2004).…”