The Horizontal/Vertical Distinction in Cross‐Cultural Consumer Research

Abstract

We argue for the importance of a relatively new cultural distinction in the horizontal (valuing equality) or vertical (emphasizing hierarchy) nature of cultures and cultural orientations. A review of the existing cross-cultural literature is presented suggesting that, although the contribution of the horizontallvertical distinction is sometimes obscured by methods that conflate it with other dimensions, its impact is distinct from that associated with individualism-collectivism. We present studies that highlight several sources of value for the horizontallvertical distinction-as a predictor of new consumer psychology phenomena and as a basis for refining the understanding of known phenomena. Results support the utility of examining this distinction for the understanding of personal values, advertising and consumer persuasion, self-presentational patterns, and gender differences. Methodological issues in studying the horizontallvertical distinction are also discussed.

They are not all same: variations in Asian consumers’ value perceptions of luxury brands

“…Second, the findings enhance the understanding of the differences in value perceptions of Asian consumers by integrating the horizontal and vertical collectivistic cultural distinction (e.g., Triandis 1989;Shavitt et al 2006). The findings show that whilst both India and Indonesia are conventionally categorized as collectivistic cultures, other-directed symbolism is significantly influential on luxury value perceptions for Indian consumers reflecting the hierarchical nature of the society (Vertical Collectivism).…”

“…This result, while counter-intuitive to the general perception of Indonesia as a collectivistic society, can be explained from the lens of equality perspective (horizontal collectivist). While Indonesian consumers in general would see themselves as similar to others, they will not submit to in-group authority if the consumption choice is distasteful to them (Shavitt et al 2006). The non-significant result for self-directed symbolism among Chinese and Indian consumers can be attributed to the hierarchical nature of the society as identified in earlier studies (Belk 1999;Monkhouse et al 2012).…”

“…This study posits that due to the cultural variations, based on hierarchical or equality based nature of collectivist societies (Shavitt et al 2006), underpinning the different motives of impression management, consumers in Asia will differ in their value perceptions towards luxury brands. Thus, this study takes a first step towards understanding the constituent luxury value perceptions across the three countries by developing directional hypotheses, as discussed below.…”

Toward a Model of Cross-Cultural Business Ethics: The Impact of Individualism and Collectivism on the Ethical Decision-Making Process

“…Horizontal collectivism is focused on cooperation with others (Drach-Zahavy, 2004;Shavitt et al, 2006a). It is especially concerned with the relation-ship of the self to interdependent others.…”

“…Horizontal collectivists value cooperation with others (Drach-Zahavy, 2004;Shavitt et al, 2006a). Consequently, they are more likely to perceive as unethical those practices in which the relationships between employees are threatened than are individuals from other cultures.…”