Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rgam20

Download by: [1.55.196.166] Date: 23 January 2017, At: 19:15

Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing ScienceBridging Asia and the World

ISSN: 2163-9159 (Print) 2163-9167 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rgam20

Application and validation of a consumerethnocentrism scale in a young Vietnamesemarket segment

Trang P. Tran, Bich Khanh Ngoc Ho, Truc Quang Le & Hung Trong Hoang

To cite this article: Trang P. Tran, Bich Khanh Ngoc Ho, Truc Quang Le & Hung TrongHoang (2017) Application and validation of a consumer ethnocentrism scale in a youngVietnamese market segment, Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 27:1, 60-77, DOI:10.1080/21639159.2016.1265322

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2016.1265322

Published online: 13 Jan 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5

View related articles

View Crossmark data

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE, 2017VOL. 27, NO. 1, 60–77http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2016.1265322

Application and validation of a consumer ethnocentrism scale in a young Vietnamese market segment

Trang P. Trana, Bich Khanh Ngoc Hob  , Truc Quang Leb  and Hung Trong Hoangb aDepartment of Management, Marketing, and Information Systems, State University of New York College at Oneonta, Oneonta, NY, USA; bCollege of Economics, Hue University, Hue City, Vietnam

ABSTRACTThe primary objective of this study is to validate a consumer ethnocentrism scale in Vietnam on the basis of the existing scale, CETSCALE, proposed by Shimp and Sharma. The results from a student population show that the revised scale consists of two elements: affective and behavioral. The multidimensional structure of the revised scale is supported in the exploratory factor analysis phase and confirmed in the confirmatory factor analysis phase. The findings also indicate that convergent validity, discriminant validity, and nomological validity of the revised scale are established. The paper starts with a literature review of consumer ethnocentrism, includes methodology and discussions, and concludes with theoretical and managerial implications.

越南年轻消费群体的市场细分中消费者民族中心主义量表的应用与验证研究目标---本研究的首要目标是在越南年轻消费者群体的市

场细分中对消费者民族中心主义量表进行验证，验证依据是由谢普和夏尔马（1987）提出的现有量表，消费者民族中心主义量表（CETSCALE）。本研究针对消费者民族中心主义量表的概念化和结构及其在不同文化间的兼容性进行分析。研究对象是越南市场---越南是东南亚国家联盟（东盟）成员之一，人口数量超过9000万。研究规划/方法/方式---主要包括两项研究。第一项研究是通过

对12名学生的访谈明确产品和品牌都在当地市场受到普遍欢迎的海外国家。研究主要内容是对150名学生的样本调研结果进行数据分析。研究的主要目标是以谢普和夏尔马（1987）提出的量表为基础，制定出能够专门应用于越南市场的民族中心主义衡量量表。量表中所有相关衡量标准都改编于现有文献，包括《消费者

民族中心主义，产品判断与购买意愿》（Klein等，1998），《民族中心主义概论》（Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997）。衡量范围使用李克特七点量表，1分代表“非常不同意”，7分代表“非常同意”。研究结论---本研究得出由两项衡量标准（行为与情感）构成

的调整版量表，如模型3所示。此模型优于之前的模型2（只有一个衡量因子，其中包括11项衡量标准）与初始模型，模型1（包括Klein提出的17项衡量标准）。

KEYWORDSConsumer ethnocentrism; Vietnam; CFA; EFA; construct validity

关键词消费者民族中心主义; 越南; 年轻消费者; CFA; EFA; 构建有效性

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 25 July 2016 Revised 13 August 2016 Accepted 8 September 2016

© 2017 Korean Scholars of Marketing Science

CORRESPONDENCE TO Bich Khanh Ngoc Ho hokhanhngocbich@gmail.com, hknbich@hce.edu.vn

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 61

经过调整的民族中心主义量表有效可靠，研究中运用严谨的方法对量表进行了层层验证。首先，通过可靠性，克朗巴哈系数与AVE的构建能够体现出调整后量表具有良好的聚合效度。其次，通过AVE平方根与关联系数的对比可以体现出调整后量表中区分效度的有效性。根据研究结果显示，CETSCALE 与GEN是两种完全不同的衡量量表。这也再次突出了对由谢普和夏尔马（1987）提出的消费者民族中心主义理论概念化与操作化的肯定。最后，通过调整后消费者民族中心主义量表与常规民族中心

主义，购买意愿以及产品判断两个要素之间的关联性确立了调整后量表的理论有效性。调整后民族中心主义量表与常规消费者民族中心主义（Neuliep & McCroskey，1997）之间的关联性体现出两者间的一致性。但虽然两者间具有一致性，但构建理念上的区别体现了消费者民族中心主义的不同方面。研究创意/价值---本研究应用已有的CETSCALE量表，制定出一

个使用多重衡量标准并主要针对发展中国家（越南）的消费者民族中心主义量表。此外，由研究结果可知，谢普和夏尔马（1987）提出的CETSCALE可以经过调整后应用于新市场。初始量表的衡量维度是单一的，与此不同的是，本研究中的量表运用了多重衡量标准。调整后的量表不仅仅包含了初始量表中的11项衡量标准，同时也能够体现出情感与行为两项衡量标准。从管理者角度来看，目前全球化对企业的影响与日俱增，以全

球性的市场细分为依据，利用不同国家市场的相似性与差异性，制定出一套行之有效的市场战略对于跨国企业来说非常重要。消费者民族中心主义与心理和行为构建因素都是用于开发不同国家市场细分的有效变量。本研究提出的调整后量表有效可靠，有助于企业将消费者民族中心主义作为市场细分衡量标准的使用。

Introduction

The construct of consumer ethnocentrism and its scale, CETSCALE, have drawn the atten-tion of both researchers and managers because both are important in explaining customer behavior, especially in the situation when customers decide between domestically made and imported products. CETSCALE has been used extensively in several applications (Kipnis, Kubacki, Broderick, Siemieniako, & Pisarenko, 2012; Netemeyer, Durvasula, & Lichtenstein, 1991; Shimp, 1984; Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Two of the most popular applica-tions of CETSCALE are (1) it sheds light on better understanding of a product’s country of origin, and (2) it is strongly associated with a customer’s motivation that serves as a driving force for customer behavior, attitude, and purchase intention.

Under the influence of the globalization trend and Internet development, international transaction between countries has become more popular, opening the door for local cus-tomers to conveniently purchase products and merchandize from overseas. An attempt to develop research focusing on consumer ethnocentrism and its measurement scale is strongly encouraged (Luque-Martinez, Ibanez-Zapata, & del Barrio-Garcia, 2000; Shimp & Sharma, 1987). Research on consumer ethnocentrism plays an important role in explaining an underlying motivational mechanism driving individual and organizational customers to purchase domestic products over foreign products. Empirical results also provide insightful explanations about consumers’ patriotic attitudes, favoring local products over imported ones. More specifically, highly ethnocentric customers are prone to show more interest in domestic products and less interest in foreign products. In other words, they have posi-tive attitudes toward domestic products, while they underrate the values associated with imported products.

62 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

Although an increasing number of scholars are attempting to develop and validate con-sumer ethnocentrism findings in the developed world, to the best of our knowledge, the research that has been conducted to explore applicability of CETSCALE in South East Asia is not equivalent, much less in Vietnam. A few researchers have attempted to apply con-sumer ethnocentrism to this culture (Nguyen, 2011; Spillan & Harcar, 2013); however, the researchers have adopted the original construct in the Vietnamese market without testing whether construct validity is established and whether the unidimensionality of the scale is maintained. This emerging economy in Asia with a market of more than 90 million people has become a potential market for any multinational companies that want to expand their business overseas. Although a new market promises opportunities, it brings along with it challenges due to a new culture and its norms. Understanding customer behavior in a new market plays a role in developing a successful marketing strategy in a new market because that would help them not only provide suitable products and services meeting customers’ needs, but also avoid potential confusion derived from cultural disparities.

One of the most popular approaches to accomplishing that goal is to conduct mar-keting research in which the marketers collect data from local people and use the data to produce insightful results about the prospective market. This paper is developed to serve that purpose. The primary objective of this study is to revise and validate the consumer ethnocentrism scale proposed by Shimp and Sharma (1987) and apply it in the context of the Vietnamese culture. This revised scale is validated through a rigorous method including convergent validity, discriminant validity, and nomological validity. The paper starts with a literature review of consumer ethnocentrism, includes methodology and discussions, and concludes with theoretical and managerial implications.

Literature review

Consumer ethnocentrism

The concept of ethnocentrism was first introduced in 1907 by Sumner (Sharma, Shimp, & Shin, 1995). Ethnocentrism refers to people’s perspectives of their own group in which they exaggerate their race or country as a center of the world and feel they are better than others (Sumner, 1907). Each group believes that its own cultural values are the greatest and scorn others’ folkways (Sumner, 1907).

According to Sharma et al. (1995), ethnocentrism is a global scenario, which not only includes races, countries, groups, and social classes, but also expands into family pride, religious prejudice, racial discrimination, and patriotism. Levine and Campbell (1972) emphasize ethnocentrism in terms of cultural protection, union, and cooperation among community members and loyalty to the community. Their study expresses six behavioral trends of respondents: (1) discrimination between communities; (2) issue recognition based on the trend of their community; (3) their community is central and has a better living style; (4) underestimating the living style of others; (5) believing that their community is best, strong, and faithful; (6) others are weak and intricate.

Shimp and Sharma (1987) defined consumer ethnocentrism as beliefs and concep-tions about moral judiciousness and appropriateness in purchasing foreign products (Chryssochoidis, Krystallis, & Perreas, 2007; Fernández-Ferrín, Bande-Vilela, Klein, & Río-Araújo, 2015). The authors conclude that consumer ethnocentrism is a result of patriotism, and the fear of losing control in economic benefits due to negative effects of imports. Thus,

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 63

it results in a favorable attitude toward local products over imported ones. For high-ethno-centric consumers, purchasing local products is not only related to economy (e.g. it brings benefits for their home country), but also morality. They think that consuming foreign products is blameworthy and contrary to national interests, and rejecting them means being loyal to their nation. All of those opinions, hence, lead to prejudice against imports. Ethnocentrism, therefore, leads to partial evaluation: enhancing local products, lowering foreign products, or paying premiums for home products and not being willing to buy foreign products (Klein, Ettenson, & Morris, 1998).

The scale of consumer ethnocentrism, CETSCALE, has been verified in several studies such as Ganideh (2012), Nijssen, Douglas, and Bressers (1999), and Kamaruddin, Mokhlis, and Othman (2002). Prior studies (Lantz, Nguyen, & Tang, 2002; Rosenbaum & Wong, 2009; Siemieniako, Kubacki, Gliska, & Krot, 2011) have pointed out the negative influences of ethnocentrism on customers’ attitude toward foreign goods.

In a cross-cultural study, Douglas and Nijssen (2003) indicate that ethnocentrism does not exist in isolation, but interacts with social and demographic components. Moreover, some recent research asserts that demographic characteristics impact on consumer ethno-centrism to different degrees (Josiassen, Assaf, & Karpen, 2011; Kamaruddin et al., 2002; Shah & Halim, 2011). Sharma et al. (1995) express four social psychology components of ethnocentrism in their study of factors influencing consumer attitude toward imported products in the USA. These components include (1) openness for overseas cultures; (2) patriotism; (3) conservatism; and (4) cosmopolitanism. The result shows that ethnocentrism has a negative correlation with openness, but has positive correlations with the rest of the factors. Sharma et al. (1995) also conclude that women are more ethnocentric than men, and the higher education and income, the less ethnocentrism people display.

It is controversial whether the definition of ethnocentrism is appropriately conceptualized and operationalized by the consumer ethnocentrism construct proposed by Shimp and Sharma (1987). The authors suggested that consumer ethnocentrism consists of three components: (1) love of one country and fear of losing economic control due to imports, (2) personal objection against imported products, and (3) customer preference of domestic over imported products. These three components focus on customer attitude and behavior toward “imported products”.

Consumer ethnocentrism (CE), perceived as “trait-like properties of individual person-alities” representing individual attitude and behavior toward domestic versus imported products, is possibly different from attitude and behavior. An empirical study of CETSCALE by Shimp and Sharma (1987) suggests that 17 items represent comprehensive social norms toward domestic and foreign products in the USA and their influences on the national economy. That might explain the strong correlation between CE and attitude and behavior (Durvasula, Andrews, & Netemeyer, 1997; Good & Huddleston, 1995; Jo, 1998) although there are arguments about differences among these constructs. In view of the aforementioned arguments, the current paper suggests CE to be general consumer perception about local and foreign products and services that is comprised of two key elements: affective and behavioral.

Affective elementEthnocentrism refers to the extent to which one’s own groups are differentiated from others in which people have positive feelings about their own groups while they show negative feelings about other groups. High-ethnocentric individuals generally express their favorit-ism toward domestic products and hostility toward foreign products, regardless of quality (Acharya & Elliott, 2003; Teo, Mohamad, & Ramayah, 2011).

64 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

Behavioral elementThe behavioral element is an important component of ethnocentrism (Shimp & Sharma, 1987) that represents the extent to which people like local products and hate foreign coun-terparts. Once customers develop a strong positive feeling about domestic products or services, they usually engage in a type of behavior (e.g. willingness to purchase, or positive word of mouth) toward the products or services they like.

Measuring consumer ethnocentrism

An attempt to develop a consumer ethnocentrism scale can be traced back to the early days when Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) tried to measure ethnocen-trism using the Authoritarian Personality. The scale consists of four fundamental dimensions that are designed to quantify the level of ethnocentrism of two groups: the ethnocentric and non-ethnocentric group. Two of those dimensions were employed to build a new scale called The E-Scale, geared toward minority groups. The new scale is a measure reflective of preference of people belonging to in-groups and hostility against people from out-groups.

However, the scale soon became outdated since it does not capture appropriately the dynamics of consumer ethnocentrism. In response to that, a newer construct was initiated by Shimp (1984) employing a number of criteria portraying differences between ethnocentrics and non-ethnocentrics. This proposed scale encompasses measurements of beliefs (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977), purchase intentions (Warshaw, 1980), and related items pertaining to evaluation of purchase of automobile products from domestic versus foreign manufacturers. More recently, Shimp and Sharma (1987) proposed a new scale, CETSCALE, that captures the tendency of consumer ethnocentrism that customers have toward a purchase of foreign products versus American products. Drawing on the original consumer ethnocentrism scale, a number of researchers have found CETSCALE to be unidimensional (Caruana & Magri, 1996; Durvasula et al., 1997; Marcoux, Filiactrault, & Cheron, 1997; Mittelstaedt, Hopkins, Raymond, & Duke, 2004; Netemeyer et al., 1991; Sharma et al., 1995). But others have discovered more than one dimension in different cultures, such as Poland (Marcoux et al., 1997), Malaysia (Mavondo & Tan, 1999), the UK and China (Yu & Albaum, 2002), Netherlands (Douglas & Nijssen, 2003), India (Bawa, 2004), Canada and Russia (Saffu & Walker, 2005), and China, India, the UK, and the USA (Bawa, 2004; Hsu & Nien, 2008; Khan & Rizvi, 2008; Pereira, Hsu, & Kundu, 2002; Qing, Lobo, & Chongguang, 2012; Wei, Wright, Wang, & Yu, 2009).

In Asia, a number of researchers have developed similar research to explore the applica-bility of CETSCALE in different societies; however, the idea of unidimensionality of the scale is split across cultures. Some researchers have confirmed CETSCALE to be unidimensional, including Sharma et al. (1995) who conducted their research in South Korea, Pereira et al. (2002) in China, (Table 1) India, and Taiwan, Kwak, Jaju, and Larsen (2006) in South Korea, the USA, and India, and Qing et al. (2012) in China. On the other hand, the unidimension-ality of CETSCALE is not confirmed in other research such as Mavondo and Tan (1999) conducted in Malaysia, Chowdhury (2013) in Bangladesh, Yu and Albaum (2002) in Hong Kong (UK) and Hong Kong (China), Bawa (2004) in India, (Table 1) Hsu and Nien (2008) in Taipei and Shanghai, and Khan and Rizvi (2008) in India. Detailed descriptions of those papers are presented in Table 2. Therefore there is no agreement on the conceptualization and structure of the consumer ethnocentrism scale and its compatibility across cultures.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 65

Tabl

e 1.

 Stu

dies

con

duct

ed in

Asi

a fo

cusi

ng o

n CE

TSCA

LE d

imen

sion

ality

.

a SA: s

elf-

adm

inis

tere

d qu

estio

nnai

re; P

S: p

osta

l sur

vey;

PRS

: per

sona

l sur

vey;

OS:

onl

ine

Surv

ey.

b Betw

een

pare

nthe

ses,

item

s fro

m th

e st

anda

rd 1

7-ite

m S

him

p an

d Sh

arm

a (1

987)

CET

SCAL

E ve

rsio

n.

c Shim

p an

d Sh

arm

a (1

987,

p. 2

83, f

ootn

ote

4; it

ems 2

, 4, 5

, 6, 7

, 8, 1

1, 1

3, 1

6, 1

7).

d If th

e st

udy

uses

seve

ral s

ampl

es, t

his fi

gure

refle

cts t

he to

tal s

um o

f all

of th

em.

e n.a.

= n

ot a

vaila

ble.

So

urce

: Ada

pted

from

Jim

énez

-Gue

rrer

o, G

ázqu

ez-A

bad,

and

Lin

ares

-Agü

era

(201

4).

Stud

y (c

hron

olog

ical

ord

er)

Coun

try

Sam

ple

Sam

-pl

e si

zed

Met

hodo

logy

fo

r obt

aini

ng

info

rmat

iona

CETS

CALE

b ver

sion

Like

rt

scal

eU

nidi

men

sion

ality

Shar

ma

et a

l. (1

995)

Sout

h Ko

rea

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

667

SA; P

S17

-item

7-po

int

Yes

Mav

ondo

and

Tan

(199

9)M

alay

sia

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

186

PRS

17-it

em7-

poin

tN

oPe

reira

et a

l. (2

002)

Chin

a, In

dia,

Taiw

anSt

uden

ts29

8SA

17-it

emn.

a.Ye

sYu

and

Alb

aum

(200

2)H

ong

Kong

(UK)

, H

ong

Kong

(Chi

na)

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

684

SA17

-item

/10-

item

c5-

poin

tN

o; Y

es (o

nly

usin

g th

e 10

-item

scal

e an

d un

der C

hine

se)

Baw

a (2

004)

Indi

aBu

sine

ss m

anag

ers,

univ

er-

sity

stud

ents

, sec

onda

ry

scho

ol st

uden

ts

336

SA; P

S11

-item

(2, 3

, 4, 8

, 9, 1

0, 1

1, 1

3,

14, 1

5, 1

6), 1

1-ite

m (1

, 3, 8

, 9,

11–1

7), 1

4-ite

m (1

, 3, 5

–11,

13

–17)

7-po

int

No

Kwak

et a

l. (2

006)

Sout

h Ko

rea,

USA

, In

dia

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion,

uni

ver-

sity

stud

ents

1410

SA; O

S5-

item

(n.a

.) an

d 17

-item

7-po

int

Yes

Hsu

and

Nie

n (2

008)

Taip

ei, S

hang

hai

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

617

PRS

10-it

emc

n.a.

No

Khan

and

Riz

vi (2

008)

Indi

aU

nive

rsity

stud

ents

96SA

17-it

emn.

a.N

oW

ei e

t al.

(200

9)Ch

ina

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

754

PRS

16-it

em (e

xcep

t 16)

7-po

int

No

Ram

ayah

, Moh

amad

, Che

e Yo

ung,

an

d M

ay C

huin

(201

1)M

alay

sia

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

180

PRS

17-it

emn.

a.N

o

Teo

et a

l. (2

011)

Mal

aysi

aG

ener

al p

opul

atio

n39

8SA

17-it

em5-

poin

tYe

s (al

so th

e 2-

dim

en-

sion

s mod

el o

ffers

a

high

relia

bilit

y le

vel)

Qin

g et

al.

(201

2)Ch

ina

Gen

eral

pop

ulat

ion

535

PRS

3-ite

m (n

.a.)e

5-po

int

Yes

66 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

Tabl

e 2.

 Stu

dies

supp

ortin

g th

e m

ultid

imen

sion

ality

of t

he C

ETSC

ALE.

a They

dev

elop

ed th

e an

alys

is in

Rus

sia

and

Cana

da. M

ultid

imen

sion

ality

(tw

o fa

ctor

s) is

onl

y ob

tain

ed fo

r the

Rus

sian

sam

ple.

b n.

a.: n

ot a

vaila

ble.

So

urce

: Ada

pted

from

Jim

énez

-Gue

rrer

o et

al.

(201

4).

Stud

y (c

hron

o-lo

gica

l ord

er)

Num

ber o

f fac

tors

Expl

aine

d va

rianc

e (%

)M

ain

conc

lusi

ons

Mar

coux

et a

l. (1

997)

355

.3Th

e fir

st fa

ctor

repr

esen

ts “p

rote

ctio

nism

”. It

supp

oses

the

grea

test

per

cent

age

of e

xpla

ined

var

ianc

e (3

6.9%

). Th

e se

cond

fact

or re

pres

ents

“soc

io-e

cono

mic

con

serv

atis

m” a

nd e

xpla

ins 1

0.2%

of t

he to

tal v

aria

nce.

The

third

fact

or

repr

esen

ts “p

atrio

tism

”. It

supp

oses

8.2

% o

f the

tota

l var

ianc

eM

avon

do a

nd

Tan

(199

9)3

n.ab

The

thre

e fa

ctor

s exp

lain

: (1)

ani

mos

ity, (

2) e

cono

mic

ratio

nalit

y, a

nd (3

) mor

ality

. The

CET

SCAL

E is

a c

ompl

ex se

c-on

d-or

der c

onst

ruct

Yu a

nd A

lbau

m

(200

2)2

(17

item

s, un

der C

hine

se so

v-er

eign

ty; a

nd 1

0 ite

ms,

unde

r Br

itish

sove

reig

nty)

4 (1

7 ite

ms;

un

der B

ritis

h so

vere

ignt

y)

69 (1

7 ite

ms)

; 54

(10

item

s) (2

fact

ors)

64

(10

item

s) (4

fact

ors)

The

10-it

em sh

ort v

ersi

on sh

ows a

gre

ater

“uni

dim

ensi

onal

beh

avio

r” th

an th

e 17

-item

stan

dard

scal

e. In

deed

, the

CE

TSCA

LE is

uni

dim

ensi

onal

whe

n us

ing

the

10-it

em sh

ort v

ersi

on a

nd th

e sa

mpl

e un

der C

hine

se so

vere

ignt

y

Dou

glas

and

N

ijsse

n (2

003)

2n.

a.Th

e CE

TSCA

LE h

as a

seco

nd d

imen

sion

rela

ted

to th

e un

avai

labi

lity

of d

omes

tic p

rodu

ctio

n. In

term

s of s

tatis

tical

re

liabi

lity,

the

scal

e no

t “lit

eral

ly tr

ansl

ated

” fro

m S

him

p an

d Sh

arm

a’s v

ersi

on a

ppea

rs a

s sup

erio

r to

that

ada

pted

to

the

part

icul

ar a

spec

ts o

f the

lang

uage

and

the

coun

try

unde

r ana

lysi

sBa

wa

(200

4)3

(man

ager

s and

seco

ndar

y sc

hool

stud

ents

); 4

(uni

vers

ity

stud

ents

)

62.7

79 (m

anag

ers)

; 38

.332

(sec

onda

ry

stud

ents

); 46

.215

(u

nive

rsity

stud

ents

)

Ethn

ocen

tris

m m

eans

diff

eren

t thi

ngs f

or d

iffer

ent s

ampl

es. T

here

fore

, it i

s nec

essa

ry to

ada

pt th

e sc

ale

– e.

g. d

elet

ing

som

e ite

ms –

to th

e so

cio-

econ

omic

and

dem

ogra

phic

cha

ract

eris

tics o

f the

sam

ple

unde

r stu

dy

Saffu

and

Wal

ker

(200

5)a

286

.72

The

first

fact

or (1

1 ite

ms)

exp

lain

s the

gre

ates

t per

cent

age

of th

e to

tal v

aria

nce

(75.

63%

). Th

e se

cond

fact

or e

xpla

ins

11.0

9% a

nd c

ompr

ises

the

six

rem

aini

ng it

ems.

It is

nec

essa

ry to

exa

min

e th

e et

hnoc

entr

ic te

nden

cies

of t

he in

di-

vidu

als b

elon

ging

to a

par

ticul

ar c

ount

ry fr

om ti

me

to ti

me,

esp

ecia

lly if

soci

o-po

litic

al a

nd c

ultu

ral c

hang

es h

ave

occu

rred

Chry

ssoc

hoid

is

et a

l. (2

007)

266

.03

The

first

fact

or (3

4.72

% o

f tot

al v

aria

nce)

can

be

deno

min

ated

as “

hard

eth

noce

ntris

m”.

It re

pres

ents

a st

rong

pre

fer-

ence

tow

ard

dom

estic

pro

duct

s and

an

antip

athy

tow

ard

fore

ign-

mad

e pr

oduc

ts. T

he se

cond

fact

or (3

1.31

% o

f the

to

tal v

aria

nce)

can

be

cons

ider

ed a

s “so

ft e

thno

cent

rism

”. It

repr

esen

ts a

pre

fere

nce

tow

ard

dom

estic

pro

duct

s but

it

does

not

impl

y a

disl

ike

for f

orei

gn-m

ade

prod

uctio

nH

su a

nd N

ien

(200

8)2

56.9

4 (S

hang

hai);

66

.27

(Tai

pei)

The

first

fact

or (4

5.03

% a

nd 5

5.30

% o

f the

tota

l var

ianc

e in

Sha

ngha

i and

Taip

ei, r

espe

ctiv

ely)

repr

esen

ts p

rote

ctio

nism

(T

aipe

i) an

d co

nser

vativ

e pa

trio

tism

(Sha

ngha

i). T

he se

cond

fact

or (1

1.91

% a

nd 1

0.97

%) r

epre

sent

s con

fiden

ce in

do

mes

tic p

rodu

cts (

Taip

ei) a

nd d

efen

sive

pat

riotis

m (S

hang

hai)

Khan

and

Riz

vi

(200

8)4

59.9

7Th

e fo

ur fa

ctor

s eac

h ex

plai

n a

very

sim

ilar p

erce

ntag

e of

the

tota

l var

ianc

e: fa

ctor

1 (1

8.93

%);

fact

or 2

(14.

87%

); fa

ctor

3

(13.

12%

); fa

ctor

4 (1

3.05

%).

Uni

dim

ensi

onal

ity o

f the

CET

SCAL

E ou

tsid

e th

e U

SA is

– a

t lea

st –

que

stio

nabl

eW

ei e

t al.

(200

9)

2n.

a.Th

e fir

st fa

ctor

com

pris

es n

ine

item

s. Th

e se

cond

fact

or c

ompr

ises

seve

n ite

ms

Ram

ayah

et a

l. (2

011)

264

.94

The

first

fact

or (“

hard

eth

noce

ntris

m”)

exp

lain

s 33.

28%

of t

he to

tal v

aria

nce.

The

seco

nd fa

ctor

(“so

ft e

thno

cent

rism

”)

supp

oses

33.

61%

Shar

ma

(201

5)3

73Co

nsum

er e

thno

cent

rism

is c

once

ptua

lized

as a

n at

titud

e co

nstr

uctio

n co

nsis

ting

of th

ree

fact

ors (

affec

tive

reac

tion,

co

gniti

ve b

ias,

beha

vior

al p

refe

renc

e). T

he re

vise

d sc

ale

was

test

ed u

sing

adu

lt co

nsum

ers f

rom

Chi

na, I

ndia

, the

UK,

an

d th

e U

SA

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 67

Methodology

Sample collection

Data were collected from a student population in a university in Hue, Vietnam. Students were chosen for our study for the following reasons. First, students belong to young con-sumers who are the major group that purchase foreign products (Wang, He, & Li, 2013). Second, students are generally well-educated about the history of their home country and the relationship between their home country and other countries, thus they tend to hold a greater level of consumer ethnocentrism (Cui, Wajda, & Hu, 2012). Third, by living and studying in Hue city, a market of enormous imported products, students are exposed to imported products in the market. Therefore, using students in this study would be appro-priate for answering questions related to consumer ethnocentrism (Bahaee & Pisani, 2009). Consequently, the students are more likely to represent the trend accurately. Out of a num-ber of surveys administered 150 surveys were completed and used for data analysis. In the sample, 4% of students were under the age of 20 years and 95.7% were between the ages of 20 and 30 years. Males accounted for 31% while females accounted for 69%.

Measurements and procedure

All related measurement scales were adapted from existing literature including consumer ethnocentrism, product judgment, and willingness to buy (Klein et al., 1998), and general ethnocentrism (Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997). The measurements used 7-point Likert scales with 1 being “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree”. Multiple steps of back-translation were used to be sure the meaning of the questions remains the same after the questionnaire’s translation. First, the questionnaire was translated from English to Vietnamese, which then was translated back into English by three bilingual translators. After differences were found between the two English versions, the Vietnamese version was revised and used to collect data. Before the main study was implemented, a qualitative research was conducted by interviewing 12 students who were selected randomly. They were asked to read through the questionnaire to find any unclear terms or questions and then help identify a foreign country whose products and brands were popular in the local market and all respondents agreed that Chinese products and brands were most popular. The reasons for Chinese products’ popularity were because a wide variety of Chinese products were offered, prices were reasonable, and product designs were attractive. The task of identifying a foreign country was important because it served the purpose of testing nomological validity to see whether correlations between the revised consumer ethnocentrism scale, product judgment, and willingness to buy were significant. And questions from two related constructs (prod-uct judgment and willingness to buy) were based on the context of the particular foreign country. Based on students’ feedback from the interviews, China was selected as a focal country and errors were eliminated, and the questionnaire was revised and finalized. In the main study, the self-administered questionnaires, including eight sections, were directly distributed to students in different classes. The participants had clearly explained to them all special terms and the purpose of the study. Each participant took around 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. After completing the survey, the respondents were thanked for their cooperation.

68 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

Exploratory factor analysis

The suitability for factor analysis of this sample was examined first, employing two criteria: the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. The fact that the KMO measure of sampling adequacy value was .93 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was significant (p < .001) allowed factor analysis to proceed. Three eigenvalues derived from principal components analysis were greater than 1. However, only the first two factors exceeded the criterion value resulting from parallel analysis (Horn, 1965). Additionally, scree-plot results supported a two-factor solution. Thus, the findings supported the two-factor solution, and therefore this solution was selected for further analysis. Out of 17 items from the original scale, 6 items were removed due to low loading and cross loading, leaving 11 items including 7 items loaded in the 1st factor (Behavioral) and 4 items in the 2nd factor (Affective). The results of factor analysis using these two factors are shown in Table 3.

Confirmatory factor analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation procedure was employed to assess the measurement model. This was conducted on a measurement model of the 11-item scale, as confirmed by the prior step (exploratory factor analysis), with two factors being free correlated (Figure 3 and Model 3 in Table 4). In this model, all factor loadings were statistically significant. Although the χ2 test was significant (χ2

(43) = 72.08, p = .004), other fit indices produced good fit (The goodness of fit index (GFI) = .919, Comparative fit index (CFI) = .96, and Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .067). For the purpose of comparison, a measurement model with all 17 items loaded in one factor (Figure 1 and Model 1 in Table 4) was tested; the fit statistics were GFI = .727, CFI = .819, and RMSEA = .113. Similarly, a measurement model with all 11 items loaded in one factor (Figure 2 and Model 2 in Table 4) was tested; the fit statistics were GFI = .798, CIF = .834,

Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis of consumer ethnocentrism.

Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

Items Behavioral Affective 3. Buy Vietnamese products. Keep Vietnamese people working. .834. Vietnamese products, first, last, and foremost. .819. It is always best to purchase Vietnamese products. .731. Vietnamese people should always buy Vietnamese products instead of imports. .7313. It may cost me in the long-run but I prefer to support Vietnamese products. .7316. We should buy from foreign countries only those products that we cannot obtain

within our own country..70

2. Only those products that are unavailable in Vietnam should be imported. .6511. Vietnamese people should not buy foreign products, because this hurts Vietnamese

business and causes unemployment..83

14. Foreigners should not be allowed to put their products on our markets. .7910. There should be very little trading or purchasing of goods from other countries unless

out of necessity..74

6. It is not right to purchase foreign products, because it puts Vietnamese people out of jobs.

.70

Eigenvalues 5.31 1.53% variance explained 48.29 13.91AVE .54 .52CR .89 .81Cronbach’s α .89 .80

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 69

and RMSEA = .136. The comparison results indicated that Model 3 provided better fit than Models 1 and 2.

It was of importance to examine the factorial structure of CE (Model 3) within each sub-dimension. In general, most of the fit statistics for the two factors were good (for Behavioral, χ2

(14) = 24.431, GFI = .953, CFI = .978, RMSEA = .071; for Affective, χ2(2)

= 4.493, GFI = .985, CFI = .987, RMSEA = .091). Among those indices, all comparative indices for the two factors were good (CIF values were greater than .90), the RMSEA for Behavioral was adequate, but for Affective it was barely adequate (.091). Lastly, the χ2 value for Behavioral was significant which did not provide a good fit while the χ2 value for Affective was non-significant implying a good fit. Since χ2 values are impacted by other fac-tors, additional fit statistics were taken into account when model fit was evaluated. Overall, these figures showed unidimensionality of the two first-order dimensions of the CE scale (Behavioral and Affective) and these dimensions are strongly correlated (r = .61).

Convergent validity

Cronbach’s α for Behavioral and Affective was .89 and .80, respectively. The construct reli-ability of Behavioral and Affective was .89 and .81, respectively, both of which were higher than the accepted value of .70 (Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2013). The average variance extracted (AVE) for Behavioral and Affective was .538 and .518, respectively, exceeding the cut-off value of .5 (Hair et al., 2013). This implied a high level of convergent validity as well as unidimensionality of the two first-order dimensions of the CE scale (see Table 3).

Discriminant validity

In addition to convergent validity, discriminant validity was tested to measure the validity of an underlying construct. If a construct shows evidence of discriminant validity, the variance shared between that construct and the block of its indicators is greater than the variance shared by that construct and other constructs with each characterizing another block of different indicators (Hulland, 1999). That is obtained by comparing between the square root of the AVE and correlation coefficients between that construct and others. If the square root of the AVE is greater than the Pearson’s correlation coefficients, the evidence of discriminant validity of a construct is confirmed (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Results, shown in Table 5, illustrated that all constructs had acceptable levels of discriminant validity.

Nomological validity

Nomological validity was examined through correlation between two sub-dimensions of CE and other related constructs: general ethnocentrism, willingness to buy, and product

Table 4. Model comparison.

Alternative models χ2 df CFI GFI RMSEA Model 1: One-factor model with 17 items 345.435 119 .819 .727 .113Model 2: One-factor model with 11 items 165.938 44 .834 .798 .136Model 3: Two-factor model with 11 items 72.075 43 .960 .919 .067Behavioral 24.431 14 .978 .953 .071Affective 4.493 2 .987 .985 .091

70 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

judgment. The results are shown in Tables 5 and 6. As anticipated, both Behavioral and Affective are negatively correlated to willingness to buy (Behavioral: r = –.483, p < .001 and Affective: r = –.268, p < .05) and product judgment (Behavioral: r = –.189, p < .05 and

Figure 1. One-factor model with 17 items (Model 1).

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 71

Affective: r = –.162, p = .099). All those correlations are significant at p < .05 except one between Affective and Product Judgment that is marginally significant (p < .1). And both Behavioral and Affective are positively correlated with general ethnocentrism (Behavioral: r = .293, p < .05 and Affective: r = .17, p = .095).

Discussion

The volume of foreign direct investment (FDI) flowing into Vietnam has been increasing. According to the U.S. Department of State (2015), Vietnam has attracted $10–11 billion of FDI per year over the last five years. This number shows that Vietnam has become an important destination for foreign investment, therefore the need for reliable international marketing information has become more obvious. Therefore, it is imperative for marketers and scholars alike to validate international marketing scales in this market, particularly in the situation where these scales were originally developed and verified in developed countries or in the USA.

The main objectives of this research are to validate and refine the existing consumer ethnocentrism scale (CETSCALE) and apply it in the context of Vietnam. The results of this study suggest that the revised scale consists of two sub-dimensions (Behavioral and Affective) as indicated in Model 3. This model was superior to Model 2 (including 11 items loading on only one factor) as well as the original model, Model 1, consisting of all 17 items proposed by Klein et al. (1998).

The revised CETSCALE is a reliable and valid scale and validated through a rigorous method that includes sequential steps. First, the revised scale shows a good level of conver-gent validity which is indicated by construct reliability, Cronbach’s alpha and AVE. Second,

Figure 2. One-factor model with 11 items (Model 2).

72 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

discriminant validity of the revised scale is tested using comparison between the square root of the AVE and correlation coefficients between that construct and related constructs. The result also illustrates that the revised CETSCALE and general ethnocentrism (GEN)

Figure 3. Two-factor model with 11 items (Model 3).

Table 5. Construct reliability, AVE, and correlation.

Notes: The numbers on the diagonal are the square root of AVE. GEN: general ethnocentrism, BEH: Behavioral,AFF: Affective, BUY: willingness to buy, JUD: product judgment.

CR AVE GEN BEH AFF BUY JUDGEN .812 .524 .724BEH .890 .538 .293 .734AFF .810 .518 .170 .611 .719BUY .732 .479 −.189 −.483 −.268 .692JUD .879 .646 −.064 −.189 −.162 .190 .804

Table 6. Correlation between Behavioral and Affective and related constructs.

Estimate pBEH <–> BUY −.483 ***BEH <–> GEN .293 .004BEH <–> JUD −.189 .048AFF <–> BUY −.268 .016AFF <–> GEN .17 .095AFF <–> JUD −.162 .099

Notes: GEN: general ethnocentrism, BEH: behavioral, AFF: affective, BUY: willingness to buy, JUD: product judgment.***p ≤ 0.001.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 73

are two different scales capturing two distinct and separate constructs. This sheds light on reaffirmation of the conceptualization and operationalization of consumer ethnocentrism by Shimp and Sharma (1987).

Finally, nomological validity was established and confirmed through the correlations between two elements of the revised CETSCALE and general ethnocentrism, willingness to buy, and product judgment. The correlation between the revised CETSCALE and general consumer ethnocentrism illustrates the consistency between the revised scale and gen-eral consumer ethnocentrism postulated by Neuliep and McCroskey (1997). However, as explained earlier in relation to discriminant validity, despite the level of consistency, both constructs are distinct, tapping into different aspects of consumer ethnocentrism.

Regarding the correlation between the revised CETSCALE and willingness to buy, the empirical findings are in line with those found in the existing literature. This lends further evidence to support the observation that the more ethnocentric the customers are, the less interested they are in purchasing foreign products. The negative disposition was seen in both behavioral and affective factors.

Theoretical and managerial implications

This research is a response to calls for research examining a more meaningful and sophis-ticated structure of consumer ethnocentrism as opposed to the unidimensional structure of CE in prior research (Verlegh, 2007). The paper has made a substantial contribution by applying a well-established CETSCALE scale and validating a multidimensional scale of CE in Vietnam. First, the paper sheds light on clarification of the conceptualization of consumer ethnocentrism by proposing a revised scale consisting of two elements: affective and behavioral. The affective element refers to the emotional feelings that customers have toward domestic and foreign products as well as manufacturing firms and service providers while the behavioral element captures the activities in which customers engage in response to their affinity for domestic products over foreign products.

Second, two elements of the revised scale would provide marketers with more insights of the unique impact of affective and behavioral components on customer perception and evaluation of domestic versus imported products and services. The fact that affection is strongly related to behavior can be observed in this paper. In general, when a customer holds a favorable feeling about a particular country, she would have a positive perception about products or services produced in that country, which is strongly associated with her behavior that can be manifested by purchase intention, repeated purchase, or positive word of mouth.

Third, the paper has provided more concrete evidence that Shimp and Sharma’s (1987) CETSCALE could be revised and applied into a new market. But different from the uni-dimensionality of the original scale, the results of the paper reconceptualize it as a multi-dimensional scale as supported by a number of researches conducted outside of the USA (see Table 2). The revised scale is not only more parsimonious, including 11 items, but it also captures two distinct aspects of the construct.

Next, the negative correlation between the two dimensions of consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy foreign-made products sends an important message to interna-tional marketers who strive to export their products overseas. Vietnam, a member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), offers a great opportunity for foreign investment with its population of more than 90 million (World Bank, 2015). However,

74 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

successfully investing into Vietnam requires marketers to have in-depth understanding about its culture and market. The revised scale is obviously an effective tool that enables international companies to overcome challenges.

Under the increasing influence of globalization, it is more important for multinational companies to develop an effective marketing strategy based on global market segmentation, taking advantage of similarities and differences of country-specific markets. Consumer ethnocentrism, coupled with psychographic and behavioral constructs, is considered a good variable that is effectively used to develop cross-country market segments. The proposal of the revised valid and reliable scale has paved the way to use consumer ethnocentrism as a market segmentation criterion.

Local marketers and policy makers also will find the current study helpful because if consumer ethnocentrism, in addition to nationalism, is smartly tailored in advertising campaigns, it will become a crucial tool that enables the local companies to gain competitive advantage over the overseas companies in the domestic market.

Limitations and future research

Although the study has provided a number of theoretical and managerial implications, the findings of the study should be interpreted and generalized in a cautious manner due to the following limitations. The first is the characteristics of the sample. As data were col-lected from students in Hue city of Vietnam, this may affect their representativeness of the general population. A more representative sample should be selected in future research, focusing more on higher demographic and geographic diversity. The second is the size and the approach of the sample. Only 150 respondents with a convenient sampling approach were involved in the survey process. Thus, a larger sample size and probabilistic sampling approach would provide better support for the research findings. Next, it is suggested that consumer ethnocentrism should be evaluated in relation to other consumer behavior as well as international marketing constructs to establish stronger nomological validity and predictive validity. Finally, the paper employed only one sample to test construct validity; it is advised that a second sample be collected to test relationships (instead of correlations) between consumer ethnocentrism and other related constructs.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Bich Khanh Ngoc Ho   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8812-4822Truc Quang Le   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-0792Hung Trong Hoang   http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8959-0606

References

Acharya, C., & Elliott, G. (2003). Consumer ethnocentrism, perceived product quality and choice-an empirical investigation. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 15, 87–115.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 75

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological bulletin, 84, 888.

Bahaee, M., & Pisani, M. J. (2009). Iranian consumer animosity and US products: A witch’s brew or elixir? International Business Review, 18, 199–210.

Bawa, A. (2004). Consumer ethnocentrism: CETSCALE validation and measurement of extent. Vikalpa, 29, 43–58.

Caruana, A., & Magri, E. (1996). The effects of dogmatism and social class variables on consumer ethnocentrism in Malta. Marketing Inelegance and Planning, 14, 39–44.

Chowdhury, T. A. (2013). Understanding consumer ethnocentrism in developing countries: Case Bangladesh. Journal of Global Marketing, 26, 224–236.

Chryssochoidis, G., Krystallis, A., & Perreas P. (2007). Ethnocentric beliefs and country-of origin (COO) effect. Impact of country, product and product attributes on Greek consumers’ evaluation of food products. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 1518–1544.

Cui, A. P., Wajda, T. A., & Hu, M. Y. (2012). Consumer animosity and product choice: Might price make a difference? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 494–506.

Douglas, S., & Nijssen, E. (2003). On the use of ‘‘borrowed’’ scales in cross-national research: a cautionary note. International Marketing Review, 20, 621–642.

Durvasula, S., Andrews, J. C., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of consumer ethnocentrism in the United States and Russia. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9, 73–93.

Fernández-Ferrín, P., Bande-Vilela, B., Klein, J. G., & Río-Araújo, M. L. D. (2015). Consumer ethnocentrism and consumer animosity: Antecedents and consequences. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 10, 73–88.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382. doi: 10.2307/3150980.

Ganideh, S. A. (2012). Can consumer ethnocentrism assist the competitiveness of Jordanian local olive oil? A fuzzy logic based analysis study. Competition Forum, 10, 94–104.

Good, L. K., & Huddleston, P. (1995). Ethnocentrism of Polish and Russian consumers: Are feelings and intentions related. International Marketing Review, 12, 35–48.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.

Hsu, J., & Nien, H. P. (2008). Who are ethnocentric? Examining consumer ethnocentrism in Chinese societies. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 436–447.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204.

Jiménez-Guerrero, J. F., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Linares-Agüera, E. del C. (2014). Using standard CETSCALE and other adapted versions of the scale for measuring consumers’ ethnocentric tendencies: An analysis of dimensionality. Business Research Quarterly, 17, 174–190.

Jo, M. S. (1998). Contingency and contextual issues of ethnocentrism-pitched advertisements: A cross-national comparison. International Marketing Review, 15, 447–457.

Josiassen, A., Assaf, A. G., & Karpen, I. O. (2011). Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy. International Marketing Review, 28, 627–646.

Kamaruddin, A. R., Mokhlis, S., & Othman, M. N. (2002). Ethnocentrism orientation and choice decisions of Malaysian consumers: The effects of socio-cultural and demographic factors. Asia Pacific Management Review, 7, 553-572.

Khan, M., & Rizvi, S. (2008). Consumer ethnocentrism: Relevance and implications for marketers. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3, 52-65.

Kipnis, E., Kubacki, Broderick, A. J., Siemieniako, D., & Pisarenko, N. L. (2012). They don’t want us to become them: Brand local integration and consumer ethnocentrism. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 836–864.

Klein, J. G., Ettenson, R., & Morris, M. D. (1998). The animosity model of foreign product purchase: An empirical test in the people’s Republic of China. Journal of Marketing, 62, 89–100.

76 T. P. TRAN ET AL.

Kwak, H., Jaju, A., & Larsen, T. (2006). Consumer ethnocentrism offline and online: The mediating role of marketing efforts and personality traits in the United States, South Korea, and India. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 367–385.

Lantz, G., Nguyen, T. M. T., & Tang, V. K. (2002). National identity, consumer ethnocentrism and product preferences in Vietnam. Asia Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 5, 169–173.

Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York, NY: Wiley.

Luque-Martinez, T., Ibanez-Zapata, J. A., & del Barrio-Garcia, S. (2000). Consumer ethnocentrism measurement-An assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE in Spain. European Journal of Marketing, 34, 1353–1374.

Marcoux, J., Filiactrault, P., & Cheron, E. (1997). The attitude underlying preferences of young urban educated polish consumers towards product made in western countries. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 9, 5–29.

Mavondo, F. T., & Tan, A. (1999). Reconceptualizing the CETSCALE (Consumer Ethnocentric Tendency Scale). Proceedings of Australia New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference 1999: Marketing in The Third Millennium. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Mittelstaedt, J., Hopkins, C., Raymond, M. A., & Duke, C. (2004). Perceived differences among countries: Understanding relative perceptions. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 17, 7–31.

Netemeyer, R. G., Durvasula, S., & Lichtenstein, D. R. (1991). A cross-national assessment of the reliability and validity of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 320–327.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14, 385–398.

Nguyen, T. L. (2011). Consumer ethnocentrism and willingness to buy foreign products: Cases of toddler milk powder, pharmaceuticals and fruits. Journal of Science and Technology Development, 14, 40–55.

Nijssen, E. J., Douglas, S. P., & Bressers, P. (1999). Attitudes toward the purchase of foreign products: Extending the model. Retrieved on November 17, 2015 from http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~sdouglas/rpubs/attitudes.html.

Pereira, A., Hsu, C. C., & Kundu, S. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of ethnocentrism in China, India, and Taiwan. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 15, 77–90.

Qing, P., Lobo, A., & Chongguang, L. (2012). The impact of lifestyle and ethnocentrism on consumers’ purchase intentions of fresh fruit in China. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 43–51.

Ramayah, T., Mohamad, O., Chee Young, N., & May Chuin, L. (2011). Testing dimensionality of the consumer ethnocentrism scale (CETSCALE): Assessing reliability and validity in a multicultural context. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 5, 325–334.

Rosenbaum, M. S., & Wong, I. A. (2009). Modeling customer equity, SERVQUAL, and ethnocentrism: A Vietnamese case study. Journal of Service Management, 20, 544–560.

Saffu, K., & Walker, J. (2005). An assessment of the consumer ethnocentric scale (CETSCALE) in an advanced and transitional country: The case of Canada and Russia. International Journal of Management, 22, 556–571.

Shah, K. A. M., & Halim, H. A. (2011). The influence of demographic profiles on consumer animosity, ethnocentrism and patriotism. International Journal of Current Research, 3, 200–208.

Sharma, P. (2015). Consumer ethnocentrism: Reconceptualization and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 381–389.

Sharma, P., Shimp, T. A., & Shin, J. (1995). Consumer ethnocentrism: A test of antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23, 26–37.

Shimp, T. A. (1984). Consumer ethnocentrism: The concept and a preliminary empirical test by Terence A. Shimp. Retrieved on April 30, 2015, from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/6259/volumes/v11/NA-11

Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer ethnocentrism: Construction and validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 280–289.

Siemieniako, D., Kubacki, K., Gliska, E., & Krot, K. (2011). National and regional ethnocentrism: A case study of beer consumers in Poland. British Food Journal, 113, 404–418.

JOURNAL OF GLOBAL SCHOLARS OF MARKETING SCIENCE 77

Spillan, J. E., & Harcar., T. (2013). A comparative study of patriotism, protectionism, social economic conservatism between Indian and Vietnamese consumers: The effects of these constructs on buying inclinations. Eurasian Journal of Business and Economics, 6(12), 1–26.

Sumner, W. (1907). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston, MA: Ginn and Co.

Teo, P. C., Mohamad, O., & Ramayah, T. (2011). Testing the dimensionality of consumer ethnocentrism scale (CETSCALE) among young Malaysian consumer market segment. African Journal of Business Management, 5, 2805–2816.

U.S. Department of State. (2015). Investment climate statement – Vietnam. Retrieved on April 30, 2015 from http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2013/204760.htm

Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Home country bias in product evaluation: The complementary roles of economic and sociopsychological motives. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 361–373.

Wang, W., He, H., & Li, Y. (2013). Animosity and willingness to buy foreign products: Moderating factors in decision-making of Chinese consumers. Asia Pacific Business Review, 19, 32–52.

Warshaw, P. R. (1980). A new model for predicting behavioral intentions: An alternative to Fishbein. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 153–172.

Wei, Y., Wright, B., Wang, H., & Yu, Ch. (2009). An evaluation of the consumer ethnocentric scale (CETSCALE) among Chinese consumers. International Journal of Global Management Studies, 1, 18–31.

World Bank (2015). Vietnam data. Retrieved on April 30, 2015 from http://data.worldbank.org/country/vietnam

Yu, J., & Albaum, G. (2002). Sovereignty change influences on consumer ethnocentrism and product preferences: Hong Kong revisited one tear later. Journal of Business Research, 55, 891–899.