Christmas Gift Search Behaviors:A Three-Country Comparison

Mark ClevelandBarry J. Babin

Michel LarochePhilippa Ward

ABSTRACT. This study explores the underlying determinants ofin-store information search for a Christmas clothing gift, focusing spe-cifically on cross-cultural differences. A self-administered survey, con-taining personality, situational, demographic, and search behavior measures,was distributed to a sample of actual consumers residing in 3 countries:Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Confirmatory fac-tor analysis revealed 3 distinct and reliable in-store search behaviors(macro, micro, and salesclerk help); exploratory factor analyses revealed23 independent factors (13 personality and 10 situational). Country sam-ple differences were assessed using chi-square tests, ANOVAs, MANCOVAs,multiple regression analyses, and Chow tests. Cross-national differenceswere found with respect to the relationships/importance of the varioussearch antecedents to in-store search behaviors. Other observed be-

Mark Cleveland is a doctoral student in administration at Concordia University,Montreal, Quebec (Canada). Barry J. Babin is Associate Professor of Marketing, Uni-versity of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS. Michel Laroche is Royal Bank Dis-tinguished Professor of Marketing, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec(Canada). Philippa Ward is a scholar at Gloucestershire Business School, Cheltenham(United Kingdom).

Address correspondence to: Michel Laroche, FRSC, Royal Bank DistinguishedProfessor of Marketing, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, 1455de Maisonneuve Blvd. West, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3G 1M8 (E-mail: laroche@jmsb.concordia.ca).

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of F.C.A.R., Quebec.

Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 15(4) 2003http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J046

2003 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.10.1300/J046v15n04_02 7

tween-country differences and directions for future research are also dis-cussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Deliv-ery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2003 by The Haworth Press,Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Information search, Christmas shopping, gift buying, in-ternational, cross-cultural consumer behavior, retail

For managers operating internationally, an important question concerns po-tential cross-cultural differences in information-seeking behaviors. As mar-kets increasingly become global in scope, managers need to look for ways tocompete effectively in multiple countries, while simultaneously controllingcosts. Since manufacturers and retailers have a certain degree of control overthe amount, sequence, and types of information they can provide for consum-ers, an improved knowledge of the appropriate mix of informational/promo-tional materials may ultimately result in increased consumer intentions topurchase. Additionally, the identification of relevant consumer behaviors atthe national level will permit marketers to develop more rational segmentationand niche strategies. Despite the large number of studies conducted on cross-cultural differences, the question of how culture might moderate consumer be-havior in the context of information search remains largely unanswered. Theinternational marketer is generally forced to rely on knowledge of consumerbehavior that has largely been developed in the United States. As the worldmoves more towards an interdependent marketing system, examination of thecross-national applicability of constructs and models developed in the U.S. toother countries becomes increasingly important (Durvasula et al., 1993). Al-though many researchers have called for an examination of the applicability oftheories to other countries and cultures, few studies have actually done so. Giftgiving in particular has received less attention from researchers, especiallyfrom a cross-cultural or international perspective, than is warranted with re-spect to its economic and social significance (Jolibert & Fernandez-Moreno,1983), as evidenced by the following statement: “The study of gift-givingcross-culturally is in its infancy, at least in the field of consumer research”(Beatty et al., 1996, p. 20).

The accumulated work of American-based researchers over the past 30years has revealed, to a large extent, the determinants of information searchbehaviors–at least for American consumers (see Moore & Lehmann, 1980;Beatty & Smith, 1987; Schmidt & Spreng, 1996, for comprehensive reviews).

8 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

This research has found that situational characteristics (such as time pressure,perceived purchase risk, merchandise selection, etc.) as well as individual dif-ference factors (i.e., psychographic and demographic factors) significantly in-fluence the degree and types of information search conducted by consumers.However, the manner in which these determinants interact to influence thedepth and extent of information gathering for gift purchases is less conclusive.While sociologists and anthropologists have long examined gift-giving rituals,only recently have consumer researchers begun to consolidate this knowledgeinto a marketing perspective. Given the high importance placed on gift givingin Western cultures, consumers are likely to expend considerable time and ef-fort in the selection of gifts, when compared to the selection of purchases forself. Among all gift-giving occasions in Western cultures, Christmas is by farthe most significant, both economically (Ruth et al., 1999; Smith & Beatty,1985) and socially (Otnes, 1990). Christmas clearly represents one of the mostimportant celebrations involving family and friends. The importance of theChristmas season to retailers, manufacturers, and advertisers is unquestion-ably large. Overall, the need for additional research in the area of gift purchas-ing behavior, particularly in cross-cultural settings, is well justified.

This study involves a comprehensive comparison of consumers’ in-store in-formation search behaviors for a Christmas clothing gift purchase, across threewestern countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Themain objectives of this study are fourfold: (1) to verify, in a cross-cultural con-text, the multidimensionality of in-store search behaviors, (2) to gain a clearerunderstanding of consumer Christmas gift shopping behavior across the threecountries studied, (3) to determine the importance of various informationsearch antecedents in the context of gift shopping, and (4) to compare the im-portance of these search antecedents as well as in-store sources of informationacross the three countries studied.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

The Economic and Social Significance of Christmas Gift Giving

In the realms of anthropology and sociology, gift-giving behavior has re-ceived considerable attention (Cheal, 1988). While anthropologists have gen-erally studied gift-giving behaviors from a “medium for social as well aseconomic exchange” perspective (Wolfinbarger, 1990, p. 699), sociologistshave primarily studied gift giving from the perspective of gift-giving norms,social responsibility, and reciprocity (Caplow, 1982). However, there havebeen considerably fewer studies on gift-giving from a consumer behavior per-

Cleveland et al. 9

spective–in fact, Lutz (1979) has described the task of uncovering the motivesfor gift-giving as “opening the black box.” Gift purchases are estimated tocomprise approximately 10% of all retail purchases in North America–in theUnited States alone, more than $100 billion is spent annually on gifts (Ruth etal., 1999). The Christmas season constitutes the bulk of gift-purchasing activi-ties. The Christmas season is crucial for many retailers, often accounting for40-50% of yearly sales and profits (Smith & Beatty, 1985). In a 1998 surveyinvolving 18 American retail companies (including Toys ‘R’ Us, FederatedDepartment Stores, Kmart, and Barnes & Noble), Blumenthal (1998) reportedthat the fourth quarter Christmas holiday season accounted for more than 50%of total operating profit for these companies for all of the year 1997.

Heeler et al. (1979) state that because a gift “ . . . has evaluative dimensionsvis-à-vis the recipient and that the reciprocity relationship is characterized by agoal structure, it would seem that buyer behavior with respect to objects pur-chased as gifts would be different to that for objects purchased for own or nor-mal household use” (p. 325). Research lends support to this contention. Astudy on the effect of brand on purchases of clothing gifts by Andrus, Silver,and Johnson (1986) found that on average, consumers were willing to pay 20%more for a gift in order to purchase a status brand. Grønhaug (1972) as well asClarke and Belk (1979), found that compared to purchases for personal use,gift purchases generally involve visiting more stores, considering more alter-natives, and spending more time searching for information. Given the preva-lence of findings such as the aforementioned in the literature, manyresearchers have concluded that the complexity of gift purchasing behavior isgreater than that for more conventional purchasing behavior (such as purchas-ing for self). Belk (1979) underscores this complexity in suggesting that thesituational conditions of gift giving vary as a consequence of the gift-givingoccasion and the specific function that the giving of a gift serves. He delineatesfour functions which the process of gift giving may serve: (1) gift giving as asymbolic form of communication (between the giver and recipient), (2) gift-giving as social exchange (i.e., as a mechanism for establishing, determining,and maintaining interpersonal relationships), (3) gift giving as an economicexchange (as a means of conferring material benefit on the recipient), and (4) giftgiving as a socializer (i.e., affecting the self-concept and behavioral patterns ofthe recipient).

Sherry (1983) has proposed the most comprehensive model of the gift-giv-ing process to date. His model divides gift-giving behavior into three distinctstages: (1) gift search and purchase (gestation), actual exchange (prestation),and gift disposition and realignment of the giver/recipient relationship (refor-mulation). Sherry (1983) stresses the need for investigation into several issuesthat are associated with the gestation stage including: (1) how is the gift se-

10 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

lected and how is it obtained, (2) how much time is devoted to search, (3) whoinfluences selection and who makes the actual purchase, (4) who gives giftsand who receives them, and (5) how are gifts symbolically decoded by recipi-ents. Each of these five points is considered in the current work, however thefocus will be on the first two issues, from a cross-national perspective.

Information Search

Lee et al. (1999) state two practical reasons as to why information searchpatterns should be studied: (1) they are useful for diagnosing consumer choicestrategies, and (2) they are linked to many important decision-making vari-ables. Generally, consumers are thought to initially rely on internally availableinformation (i.e., memory), however if this knowledge is perceived as insuffi-cient, consumers will then seek external information (Bettman, 1979). In thecontext of the current study, Beatty and Smith (1987) evoke a practical defini-tion for external search: external search effort is “. . . the degree of attention,perception, and effort directed toward obtaining environmental data or infor-mation related to the specific purchase under consideration” (p. 85). Externalinformation search can be further broken down into two types: (1) pre-pur-chase search conducted prior to visiting a store, and (2) in-store informationsearch. The focus of the current investigation will be on in-store informationsearch conducted by consumers.

Antecedents of information search. The relevant literature provides strongevidence that personality traits and other individual difference factors influ-ence information search and utilization behaviors (e.g., Schmidt & Spreng,1996; Schaninger & Sciglimpaglia, 1981; Horton, 1979). For example, re-search has shown that bargain-conscious consumers engage in greater ingreater information search (Horton, 1979; Locander & Herman, 1979), as doindividuals holding high self-esteem (Schaninger & Sciglimpaglia, 1981). Inaddition to personality characteristics, situational circumstances are believedto play a vital role in determining the extent and depth of information searchthat will be conducted by an individual. Ryans (1977) determined that per-ceived purchase risk arises in part from situational characteristics, includingthe quality of the product, the price of the product, and the store of purchase.Although most studies have reported a negative relationship between informa-tion search and time pressure (e.g., Beatty & Smith, 1987; Claxton et al.,1974), Mattson’s (1982) findings indicate that many consumers compensatefor shortfalls in search activity by directly accessing store sales personnel forquick information. Finally, demographic characteristics (such as education,age, gender, income, etc.) have also been shown to affect information-seekingbehavior. For example, in their consumer study on gift shopping patterns,Fisher and Arnold (1990) concluded that women were more involved in thegift-purchasing task than were men.

Cleveland et al. 11

As space limitations preclude a comprehensive review, Table 1 hasbeen prepared, which summarizes the relevant literature with respect to thevariables found to influence information search, and includes the reportedrelationship of each variable to extent of search (i.e., positive/increase [+],negative/decrease [], non-significant [0]). When available, studies that fo-cused specifically on gift purchasing behaviors have been included. Thesevariables have been grouped into three broad categories: (1) personality char-acteristics, (2) situational characteristics (associated with the gift purchase),

12 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 1. Determinants of Information Search

Variable/ConstructInfluence on Search:

Literature Review Findings

HypothesizedRelationship to

Search

Personal Characteristics:Christmas LoverEnjoyment of ShoppingPurchasing Self ConfidenceBargain HunterGeneric BuyerFashion-ConsciousSelf-Esteem/LeaderInfluencer/Identity ShaperStore-loyal ShopperEnduring InvolvementImportance of children

Laroche et al. (2000) (+)Katona & Mueller, 1955 (+); Kiel & Layton, 1981 (+)Newman & Staelin, 1971 (), Kiel & Layton, 1981 (+)Horton, 1979 (+); Locander & Herman, 1979 (+)Horton, 1979 (); Locander & Herman, 1979 ()Cox & Rich, 1964 (+); Dommermuth & Cundiff, 1967 (+)Schaninger & Scimpaglia, 1981 (+); Kiel & Layton, 1981 (+)Rogers, 1962 (+)Wilkie & Dickson, 1985 ()Hawkins, Best & Coney, 1986 (+)Laroche et al. (2000) (+)

++?++++++

Situational Variables:Time PressureGood Merchandise SelectionAvailability of Info.Perceived Purchase CostStrict BudgetPerceived Purchase RiskShopping ListShopping CompanionProduct FamiliaritySituational InvolvementNeed to Justify DecisionPredetermined Gift SelectionDifficult Gift RecipientClose Recipient Relationship

Sprott & Miyazaki, 1995 (); Beatty & Smith, 1987 ()Bettman et al., 1991 (+)Mattson, 1982 (+); Russo, 1977 (+)Sprott & Miyazaki, 1995 (+); Beatty & Smith, 1987 (+)Moore & Lehmann, 1980 (0); Claxton, Fry & Portis, 1974 (+)Hugstad, Taylor & Bruce, 1987 (+)McGrath, 1989 ()Otnes, Lowry & Kim, 1993 ()Kiel & Layton, 1981 (); Newman & Staelin, 1972 ()Beatty & Smith, 1987 (+)Lee et al., 1999 (+)Rigaux-Bricmont, 1993 (); Banks, 1979 ()Sprott & Miyazaki, 1995 (+)Heeler et al., 1979 (); Ryans, 1977 (+)

++++++++?

Demographic Variables:Gender (m. vs. f.)Age (old vs. young)Family SizePresence of ChildrenMarital Status (m. vs. s.)EducationIncomeOccupation

Fisher and Arnold, 1990 (); Caplow, 1982 ()Schaninger & Scimpaglia, 1981 (); Otnes, 1990 (+)Slama & Taschian, 1985 (+); Zeithaml, 1985 (0)Swinyard & Sim, 1987 (+)Newman & Staelin, 1972 (+); Moore & Lehmann, 1980 (+)Schaninger & Scimpaglia, 1981 (+); Engel et al., 1973 (+)Newman & Staelin, 1972 (+); Udell, 1966 ()Newman, 1977 (+, )

++++??

NOTE–(+): positively correlated with search; (): negatively correlated with search; (o) non-significant; (?): no hypothesizeddirection.

and (3) demographic variables. These variables will be measured in the currentstudy to uncover differences with respect to their relative effects on search be-tween the three countries, and also for control purposes (if necessary) when as-sessing aggregate country-specific differences. The third column lists thepredicted directional influence on search for each variable or construct, basedon the literature findings. Note that for a number of variables/constructs, noa priori directional hypothesis has been proposed, given the mixed findings re-ported in the literature.

In-Store Information Sources

Personal in-store information sources. Studies have found that consumersrate personal information sources as highly important (e.g., Price & Feick,1984; Robertson, 1971), especially in instances where the consumer perceiveshigh risk (e.g., Lutz & Reilly, 1973), or in situations where consumers are gen-erally susceptible to interpersonal influence (Beardon et al., 1989; Gilley et al.,1998). Furthermore, interpersonal sources are often perceived as more credi-ble than non-personal sources of information (Assael et al., 1983, as cited inFeick & Price, 1987). In the context of the current study, sales clerks representa potentially valuable and quick source of information within a retail store. Forsome gift shoppers, sales personnel may also reduce perceived feelings of risk,since sales clerks represent an objective, knowledgeable source of gift sugges-tions (Sherry & McGrath, 1989). Indeed, store salesclerks are often trained toanswer merchandise- and gift-related questions, to persuade customers to buy,and also to reassure customers about their purchases made within the store.However, research has shown that consumers often do not access store person-nel (Sherry & McGrath, 1989), even when they are standing by.

Non-personal in-store information sources. Non-personal sources of in-store information include the products themselves (brand name, packaging de-sign, presentation, packaging, manufacturer’s information, and price) andstore displays (retailer and/or brand point-of-purchase information, and prod-uct and category signage). Information accessibility within a store can be en-hanced by the number of alternatives offered, merchandise presentation (whichcan facilitate comparisons), and the overall layout of the store. According toMattson (1982), the number of alternatives offered within a store appears to bea particularly important criterion for consumers–especially when consideringthe choice of a second store to visit. Sherry and McGrath’s (1989) study exam-ining merchandise display and store layout, found that the sales volume of aparticular product was partially a function of the product’s location within thestore. Allenby and Ginter’s (1995) field study found that in-store displays and

Cleveland et al. 13

feature advertisements significantly enhanced the probability that a targetproduct would be included in a consumer’s consideration set.

The operationalization of search effort. Much of the early research con-ducted on information acquisition has generally operationalized the extent ofinformation search as the number of pieces of information acquired (seeMoore & Lehmann, 1980; Schaninger & Sciglimpaglia, 1981, for a review),with little attention paid to the specific types of information accessed. Otherstudies have employed a variety of single-item measures, such as the numberof information sources used, the number of alternatives evaluated, and theamount of time spent on the purchase decision (see Beatty & Smith, 1987, for areview). However, the use of single-item measures for information search con-strains the generalizability of the findings (Beatty & Smith, 1987). Later stud-ies expanded the operationalization of information search to include multiplemeasures for capturing distinct search behaviors (e.g., Kiel & Layton, 1981;Urbany et al., 1989). In a recent cross-cultural study (comparing French- andEnglish-speaking Canadians) on information search patterns for Christmasgift purchases, Laroche et al. (2000) uncovered three unique types of in-storesearch: (1) general information search, (2) (product-/brand-) specific informa-tion search, and (3) salesclerk assistance Their results indicate that it is possi-ble for individuals to extensively undertake one (or more) search type(s), whileengaging in less or avoiding other search types–as such, distinct informationsearch behaviors may remain hidden if the researcher employs only a generalindex search score. Therefore, we propose a priori that in-store informationsearch is multidimensional, and composed of: (1) the macro search dimension(the extent of general information gathering about product alternatives such asprices and other features, and the examination of store signage and merchan-dise display areas), (2) the micro search dimension (the extent of product-spe-cific information gathering, such as examination of the manufacturer’s labeland/or product texture/packaging), and (3) the salesclerk help dimension (thedegree to which store sales personnel are sought/relied upon for advice/assis-tance). More formally stated, we conjecture that:

H1: In-store information search is multidimensional (i.e., composed ofmacro, micro, and salesclerk help dimensions).

Cross-Cultural Studies in Consumer Behavior

Although gift giving is considered a universal behavior (Belk, 1984), thecharacteristics associated with gift giving may vary across cultures. Most ofthe relevant literature indicates that the culture in which people are raised canhave an influence on the way that they think and behave (O’Grady & Lane,

14 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

1995). Bruner and Pomazal (1988) argue that, “cultural norms serve as generalguidelines, concerning expected behaviors, desired housing, food, clothing,and most other aspects of one’s lifestyle” (p. 59). In a consumer behavior con-text, Hoover, Green and Saegert (1978) observed significant differences inlevels of perceived risk and brand loyalty between Mexican and Americanconsumers. Green and Langeard (1975) found differences between French andAmerican consumers, including: willingness to try new products and retailstores, the extent of word-of-mouth communication for both products and re-tail stores, as well as reliance on traditional media sources for information. Areview of the relevant literature provides indication that the cultural environ-ment of the consumer may play an important role in determining the types, andextent of information search conducted (e.g., Dawar et al., 1996; Thorelli &Becker, 1980; Anderson & Engeldow, 1977). Relevant to the current work,Laroche et al. (2000) uncovered evidence for such cultural differences inexamining the information search characteristics between English- andFrench-speaking Canadians in the context of a Christmas gift purchase. FrenchCanadians were more apt to rely on store salesclerks as a means of obtaininginformation; English Canadians’ search behaviors were generally more com-prehensive (in terms of comparing available alternatives, prices, etc.). Suchdifferences between these two main cultural groups within a region of the samecountry raises the possibility that information search behaviors (as well as therelative importance of various antecedents of search) will differ between coun-tries–as will be examined in the current work.

Some evidence to support this contention has been provided by a number ofstudies. Douglas (1976) reported significant differences in the purchase pat-tern of a number of convenience products between American and Frenchhousewives. In their study comparing French and Mexican gift-giving prac-tices, Jolibert and Fernandez-Moreno (1983) found that while wives generallydecided on behalf of the married couple (which recipients to give gifts to); inFrance, husbands and wives appeared to jointly decide on the same in Mexico.O’Grady and Lane’s (1995) examination of retail differences between Canadaand the United States concluded that compared to Canadians, Americans weremore concerned about personalized service when they shopped, and tended toshop where the bargains were; Canadians were more likely than Americans toshop automatically at a national chain. On the other hand, Beatty et al.’s (1991)cross-cultural study (involving American and Oriental students as subjects),which analyzed the relationship between gift-giving behaviors and personalvalues, did not find significant main effects of culture on gift-giving behavior.The results from the latter study are limited in terms of generalizability for tworeasons: (1) the use of university students as the sample frame, and (2) the factthat both American and Oriental subjects came from universities within the

Cleveland et al. 15

United States. The present study improves on their methodology, by samplingindividual consumers from the general population within each of the threecountries analyzed.

Countries Under Investigation: The United States, Canada,and the United Kingdom

Building on the seminal work of Hofstede (1980), Nordstrom and Vahlne(1992) conceptualize “psychic distance” as a function of cultural differences(e.g., individualism/collectivism), country differences (i.e., in terms of legaland administrative systems) and language differences. The current study in-volves analyzing information search behaviors across three countries–theU.S., Canada, and the U.K.–that are characterized as being relatively close inpsychic distance. The choice of these three countries has practical value from aretailer’s perspective. Since a number of retailing organizations have opera-tions in at least two of these countries (e.g., Marks & Spencer, Sears Roebuck,Wal-Mart, Toys ‘R’ Us, etc.), a better understanding of consumer behavioralcharacteristics in each country can help these retailers develop more effectivemarketing strategies.

Empirical work comparing the cultural and/or behavioral characteristics ofthese three countries is surprisingly sparse. O’Grady and Lane (1995) statethat most of the published work on U.S./Canada differences are based on ob-servation and historical analysis, as opposed to being based on empirical re-search. Even less empirical studies exist that specifically compare U.S./U.K.and Canada/U.K. cultural characteristics, although there have been somework that has examined differences in attitudes towards advertising and ad-vertising content (e.g., Weinberger & Spotts, 1989; O’Donohoe, 1995) andbusiness negotiating behavior (Campbell et al., 1988) between two or more ofthe three countries. Overall, it is generally thought that the U.K., Canada, andthe U.S. are more similar economically, politically, and culturally, than theyare different (Szymanski et al., 1993). Hofstede’s (1980) study provides strongsupporting evidence for this notion. He found that countries in the “Anglo”cluster (which included the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.) generally have a lowto medium score on the power distance index, a low to medium score on theuncertainty avoidance index, and high scores on the individualism and mascu-linity indices. Other researchers that have clustered nations according tosocio-cultural and economic characteristics have placed the United States,Canada, and the United Kingdom in the same cluster (Sethi, 1971; Ronen etal., 1977, 1985). Although some researchers (see O’Grady & Lane, 1995) havecriticized the use of national units for clustering similar cultures, it has been ar-gued that the use of countries is appropriate, since “ . . . national boundaries de-

16 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

lineate the legal, political, and social environments within which organizationsand workers operate” (Ronen & Shenkar, 1985, 444). International marketersare generally interested in identifying behavioral similarities among consum-ers from different countries, “since these offer the most attractive opportuni-ties for the transfer of products and services and for the integration of strategiesacross national markets” (Douglas & Craig, 1983, p. 134). In light of this con-tention, the orientation followed in the present study is reflective of an “etic”philosophy, employing measures that are as comparable as possible acrosscountries. Given the degree to which the cross-cultural literature characterizesthe United States, Great Britain, and Canada as similar, we might expect few,if any, significant overall variations in information search behavior by individ-uals from these three countries. This notion has not yet been subjected to em-pirical evaluation. In light of the exploratory nature of this study, the validityof following two propositions are investigated:

P1: The mean scores reported by respondents for total information searcheffort, and for each dimension of in-store search should not signifi-cantly vary across the three countries.

P2: The relative importance and directional effect of in-store search ante-cedents (personal, situational, and demographic variables) will not dif-fer significantly across the three countries.

Table 1 presented the specific directional hypotheses for each variable/con-struct’s relationship to in-store information search. No a priori predictionshave been made concerning cultural differences with respect to the effect ofeach antecedent on in-store search. Most of the studies reviewed in the previ-ous section indicated that the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. are more similar thanthey are different. Information search behaviors are therefore expected be rela-tively similar across the three countries. Should significant variations in infor-mation search characteristics emerge between these three similar countries,the likelihood that even greater differences exist between more dissimilar cul-tures would be increased. The scope of our analysis is limited to the purchaseof a specific Christmas clothing gift. Several studies have shown that clothingis the most popular gift purchased for others at Christmas (Belk, 1976; Lowes,et al., 1971). Furthermore, a clothing gift is likely to be one of the most effec-tive ways for a giver to communicate his/her perception of the recipient and thegiver-receiver relationship, since clothing conveys information about sex, age,status, as well as personality (Sproles, 1979).

Cleveland et al. 17

METHODOLOGY

The Sample

A field survey was deemed as the most appropriate means of gathering re-search data to permit the gathering of data in a cost-effective and timely man-ner within each country. One urban area within each country was selected forsurveying. Individual households within the selected urban areas were ap-proached by a researcher and/or trained assistant, and invited to participate inthe study. Consenting individuals were given a questionnaire, a return-ad-dressed, prepaid postage envelope, and a cover letter that (1) briefly describedthe nature of the study, and (2) provided instructions for completing the ques-tionnaire. Respondents completed and mailed back their surveys at their ownconvenience. A total of 2050 questionnaires were distributed in the abovemanner (450 for Canada, and 800 each for the U.S. and the U.K.), between De-cember 28 and February 5. Overall response rates were somewhat disappoint-ing, given that the target response rate for each country was hoped to be at least25%. For Canada, there were 127 surveys (for a response rate of 28%), for theU.S., 179 surveys (22%), and for the U.K., 86 surveys (11%). Overall, therewere 392 usable surveys for analysis, which amounts to a combined responserate of 19%.

Survey Description

A control question appeared at the top of the first page of the survey, whichasked the respondent whether he/she had purchased a Christmas clothing giftfor someone this past Christmas season. The eight-page questionnaire was di-vided into three parts. The first page of Part 1 contained questions that mea-sured characteristics of the specific gift purchase (e.g., for whom purchased,gift cost, etc.), and general Christmas shopping characteristics (e.g., number ofpeople purchased for, total amount spent, etc.). The following three pages ofPart 1 contained 43 questions designed to measure the respondent’s actual sit-uation in the course of purchasing the specific clothing gift (i.e., perceivedrisk, gift budget, time pressure, etc.), 11 questions that related to the respon-dent’s use of various in-store information sources. Part 2 of the questionnairecontained 65 statements designed to measure the personal characteristics ofthe respondent, and his/her feelings with respect to Christmas in general (withthe objective of determining how various personality attributes interact to in-fluence information search). With the exception of the queries on the first pageof the survey, all items in Parts 1 and 2 were expressed on 10-point scales (an-chored by strongly agree/strongly disagree). The final part of the survey con-

18 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

tained standard demographic measures (e.g., age, gender, income, etc.). Minormodifications to the measuring instrument were required to account for cur-rency and categorization differences between the three countries.

Many of the questions contained within the survey were adapted from a re-cent study conducted by Laroche et al. (2000), although several questions (i.e.,those pertaining to media information sources, and number and type of storessearched) were developed anew. Fellow researchers in all three countries re-viewed the survey instrument, to ensure that the dimensions included in themeasuring instrument adequately captured the domain of the phenomenon un-der analysis. Prior to data collection, the measuring instrument was pretested,modified, and pretested again. The objective of the pretests was to assess easeof use/comprehension of the survey, and to verify the grammar and context ofthe measuring items.

Data Preparation

As the measuring instrument contained a total of 119 scale items, a seriesfactor analyses was used to condense the data and to verify the reliability of theconstruct measures. Separate factor analyses were run for the dependent andindependent variables. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assessthe dimensionality of in-store information search (H1), using EQS (Bentler,1985: see Byrne, 1997). Ten survey items designed to measure consumers’ rel-ative use of various in-store sources of information were entered as factoritems. As per standard EQS procedures, one item per factor arbitrarily loadedas a fixed parameter; the remaining items loaded as free parameters. As illus-trated in Figure 1, the unidimensional model represents a poor fit to the data(χ2

35 = 817.545, p < .001; Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.33). In contrast, thehypothesized three-dimensional model provides a far better fit to the data(χ2

32 = 114.437; CFI = 0.936); all freely estimated parameter path coefficientswere significant and greater than 0.5 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1982) for the lattermodel (Appendix 1). In sum, the findings support our conjecture (H1) thatin-store information search is composed of three distinct (albeit correlated)factors, namely the macro, micro, and sales clerk help dimensions.

Exploratory factor analysis (principal components method and directoblimin rotation) was used for the independent measures (antecedents ofin-store search). With the exception of the dependent measures, all scaleditems from Parts 1 and 2 of the questionnaire were entered into the initial factoranalysis; each factor was then subjected to a scale reliability analysis. Unsatis-factory items were removed, and the factor/reliability analyses were rerun. Theaforementioned procedure was repeated 12 times, after which the final solu-

Cleveland et al. 19

tion emerged (incorporating 68 out of the original 106 items) with 23 factors(eigenvalues > 1.0). Conceptually, 13 factors reflected a number of personalityor psychographic constructs identified in the literature, while the remaining 10factors were primarily reflective of situational characteristics of the gift-pur-chasing task (Appendix 1). Each of the factors was given a descriptive label.Separate reliability analyses were then conducted on each factor for eachcountry set. Considering that this was a field study and that the scale itemswere used without any modifications across the three countries, the resultswere pleasing. Most factor items had loadings greater than 0.70; factorreliabilities were also generally quite good (i.e., greater than 0.60) and stableacross the three country samples.

Regression Analyses

For each country sample, relationships between the independent (anteced-ent) variables and each dependent (search type) variable were assessed bystepwise multiple regression analyses. Demographic survey items requiredrecoding prior to entering into regressions. Gender was converted into adummy variable (0 = female, 1 = male), as was employment status (0 = notworking, 1 = working) and student status (0 = not a student, 1 = student). The

20 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

SEARCH

MACROSEARCH

MICROSEARCH

SCHELP

0.550.59*

0.59*

0.55*

0.57*

0.53*

0.50*

0.29*

0.31*

0.15*

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

V9

V10

0.84

R = 0.302

0.80R = 0.352

0.81R = 0.352

0.84

R = 0.322

0.85R = 0.282

0.87R = 0.252

0.96R = 0.082

0.95R = 0.102

0.99R = 0.022

R = 0.302

0.82

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E10

0.17*

0.43*

0.16*

0.560.70*

0.73*

0.59*

0.81

0.63*0.73*

0.84

0.84*

0.78*

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

V9

V10

0.83

R = 0.322

0.71R = 0.492

0.68R = 0.542

0.81R = 0.352

0.58R = 0.662

0.77R = 0.402

0.70R = 0.502

0.54

R = 0.712

0.55R = 0.702

0.63

R = 0.612

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5

E6

E7

E8

E9

E10

EQS MODEL, standardized parameter estimates.= 114.44, p < .000, CFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.08•2

EQS MODEL, standardized parameter estimates.= 817.54, p < .000, CFI = 0.39, RMSEA = 0.24•2

UNIDIMENSIONAL MODEL MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL

FIGURE 1. The Dimensionality of In-Store Information Search

remaining nominally-measured variables were converted into interval vari-ables, including: (1) for whom gift intended (1 = primary/secondary family re-lation, 2 = tertiary family relation, 3 = other), (2) age (1 = 0-19, 2 = 20-29, etc.);(3) marital status (1 = single/widowed, 2 = separated/divorced, 3 = mar-ried/living together); (4) family income (1 = $0-19,999, 2 = $20,000-29,999,etc.); (5) family size (1 = 1, 2 = 2, etc.); and (6) educational attainment (1 = ele-mentary/high school, 2 = college/technical/vocational, 3 = undergraduate de-gree, 4 = graduate degree or higher). Finally, the cost of the clothing gift(converted to Canadian currency) and the age of the youngest child living athome (if applicable), were entered as discrete variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A test for significant differences between each of the three country sampleswas conducted on each measured demographic variable (Appendix 2). Differ-ences in sample composition were found for age, marital status, household in-come, family size, educational attainment, and student status. The three groupswere relatively similar in terms of gender composition.

Christmas Shopping Characteristics

The Specific Christmas Clothing Gift. As shown in Table 2, statistically sig-nificant differences did not emerge between the three countries with respect tothe joint-giver variable (i.e., whether the gift was given by one or multiple re-cipients); more than 68% of the gifts were given by a single person. With re-spect to whom the specific gift was intended for, minor variations were foundbetween the countries (p = .075). For the pooled sample, almost 70% of thegifts were given either to primary (e.g., parent, children, spouse) or secondary(e.g., grandparent, grandchild) family relations. The average amount spent (inCanadian currency) on the Christmas clothing gift was almost identical acrossthe three countries. Significant differences did emerge (p = .004) with respectto the amount of time spent shopping in the particular store where the gift waseventually purchased. Canadian and American respondents generally reportedspending more time in the store than British respondents. Concerning the aver-age number of stores visited in conjunction with the specific clothing gift, sig-nificant variations did not emerge among the three countries, although countrydistinctions were obtained (p = .005) with respect to the type of store where thegift was eventually purchased. Proportionally, Canadian and American re-spondents were more likely than British respondents to purchase the gift at adepartment store; American and British subjects were more likely than Cana-

Cleveland et al. 21

22 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 2. Gift and Christmas Shopping Characteristics*

Variable Range Canada U.S.A. U.K. Total

Joint givers Single giverMultiple givers•2 = 5.01, p = .082c

82 (64.6%)45 (35.4)

132 (73.7%)47 (26.3)

53 (61.6%)33 (38.4)

267 (68.1%)125 (31.9)

Gift recipient(whom)

Pri./sec. relationTertiary relationOther•2 = 8.51, p = .075c

93 (73.2)12 (9.4)22 (17.3)

116 (64.8)10 (5.6)53 (29.6)

64 (74.4)6 (7.0)

16 (18.6)

273 (69.6)28 (7.1)91 (23.2)

Gift cost($Can.)

MeanF-stat. = .013, p = .937

$107.48 $107.78 $105.33 $107.13

Time spent–store(shoppingfor gift)

0-15 mins.16-29 mins.30+ mins.•2 = 22.30, p = .004a

10 (7.9)29 (22.8)47 (37.0)

23 (13.1)31 (17.6)62 (35.2)

13 (15.3)32 (37.6)18 (21.2)

46 (11.9)92 (23.7)

127 (32.7)

# Storesvisited (inselectinggift)

1-23-45+•2 = 6.794, p = .147

59 (46.5)28 (22.0)40 (31.5)

69 (38.8)49 (27.5)60 (33.7)

31 (36.0)32 (37.2)23 (26.7)

159 (40.7)109 (27.9)123 (31.5)

Type ofstore (giftpurchased)

Dept. storeDiscount storeChain spec. storeLocal indep./bout.Other•2 = 22.22, p = .005a

69 (54.3)4 (3.1)

29 (22.8)23 (18.1)

2 (1.6)

82 (46.6)13 (7.4)64 (36.4)17 (7.4)

4 (2.3)

35 (40.7)2 (2.3)

33 (38.4)16 (18.6)

0 (0)

186 (47.8)19 (4.9)

126 (32.4)52 (13.4)

6 (1.5)

Media sources(for gift pur-chase) cited

ZeroOneTwo+•2 = 11.704, p = .020b

69 (54.3)52 (40.9)

6 (4.7)

79 (44.4)87 (48.9)12 (6.7)

56 (65.1)24 (27.9)

6 (7.0)

204 (52.2)163 (41.7)

24 (6.1)

# People giftspurchased for

MeanF-stat. = 2.003, p = .136

10.33 11.59 12.21 11.31

Total spentXmas (Can.equivalent)

$ 0-299$300-499$500-699$700-899$900+∑2 = 16.72, p = .033b

23 (18.1)25 (19.7)17 (13.4)21 (16.5)41 (32.3)

52 (29.2)34 (19.1)34 (19.1)19 (10.7)39 (21.9)

14 (16.7)23 (27.4)17 (20.2)14 (16.7)16 (19.0)

89 (22.9)82 (21.2)68 (17.5)54 (13.9)96 (24.7)

Start shopping(Xmas)

October or earlierNovemberDecember•2 = 0.82, p = .936

22 (17.3)51 (40.2)54 (42.5)

29 (16.2)66 (36.9)84 (46.9)

16 (18.6)31 (36.0)39 (45.3)

67 (17.1)148 (37.8)177 (45.2)

Separate trips(Xmas shop-ping)

0-34-910+•2 = 6.02, p = .198

31 (24.4)62 (49.6)33 (26.0)

52 (29.1)95 (53.1)32 (17.9)

16 (18.6)52 (60.5)18 (20.9)

99 (25.3)210 (53.6)

83 (21.2)

aIndicates significance (2-sided, Pearson), at alpha < .01, bp < .05, c < .10 (F-statistic: one-sided)*Country totals may differ across categories due to missing/incomplete data.

dian subjects to buy at a chain specialty store; both British and Canadian re-spondents were more apt to make their gift purchase at a local independentstore (boutique) than American respondents were. Significant variation wasobtained with respect to the influence of various media (p = .020). Americanswere the most likely to indicate that one or more media sources (e.g., TV/radioads, newspaper ads, store catalogues, etc.) influenced their purchase choice,followed by Canadians. Proportionally, fewer Britons were influenced by me-dia sources.

Christmas Shopping in General. An ANOVA did not reveal significantvariations between the countries with respect to the average number of peoplethat respondents reported buying gifts for (11.31 pooled mean). Significantdifferences also did not emerge with respect to the date that Christmas shop-ping was commenced that season, and the number of separate Christmas shop-ping trips undertaken. However, the average total amount spent (in $Cdn.) onChristmas gifts that season varied somewhat among the three countries (p =.033). Proportionally, a greater number of Canadian respondents indicatedspending $900 or more on gifts that season than either American or British re-spondents.

Mean Scores on In-Store Information Search Behaviors

To compare the mean scores reported by respondents in each country on thethree search behaviors and total search effort (P1), a series of MANCOVAswere conducted. Significant sample differences with respect to demographiccharacteristics were entered as covariates. As shown in Table 3, significantdifferences were obtained only for the mean micro information search scores(p = .001): Americans reported significantly lower scores than either Canadi-ans or Britons. In contrast, Americans reported higher mean macro search scoresthan either Canadians or Britons, although this result was not statistically sig-nificant. Additionally, in looking at the mean scores, it appears that comparedto Canadians or Americans, Britons were reluctant to seek store sales person-nel assistance, although again, this finding was statistically insignificant. Themean total search scores reported by respondents across the three countrieswere also not statistically different. To obtain a clearer differentiation of microsearch behaviors between the three countries, a post-hoc comparison was per-formed (Scheffe method). Significant differences emerged between Can./U.S.respondents (p = .002) and between U.K./U.S. respondents (p = .044). Overall,it appears that Americans were less apt to scrutinize product-specific informa-tion than either Canadians or Britons, but rather preferred to gather more gen-eral information about clothing gift alternatives. Thus the evidence in supportof Proposition 1 is mixed.

Cleveland et al. 23

Regression Results

Table 4 summarizes the results of the regressions conducted on each de-pendent variable (search type) for each country. Regression values are ex-pressed as standardized beta coefficients, in order to facilitate comparisonsamong the three countries. Within each search type, the significant antecedentvariables have been grouped into three sets: personality variables, situationalcharacteristics, and demographic variables. The F-statistics for all nine regres-sion models were all highly significant (p = .001), thus indicating good fits.

Macro Information Search

Twelve significant antecedent variables (4 personality [p], 4 situational [s],and 4 demographic [d]) were obtained for the Canadian sample, 6 variables(4p, 2d) were obtained for the American sample, and 8 variables (5p, 2s, 1d)were obtained for the British sample. These preliminary results provide indica-tion that among the three countries, different factors played a role in influenc-ing macro information search patterns. In terms of the presence (and signdirection) of significant predictor variables, there were only a few similaritiesexhibited among all the three country sample sets. As expected, motivated giv-ers (i.e., individuals who expend effort in order to obtain a gift that the recipi-ent will like) generally gathered more product-category information andcompared a greater number of brands. Similarly, budget-minded individualsalso undertook a greater degree of macro information search, in order to obtaina suitable gift within a preconceived budget. Two variables had a common im-pact on macro information acquisition in two country samples: bargain hunter

24 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 3. MANCOVA Findings: Variations Among Countries

In-store search type Adjusted means§

Macro informationsearchMicro information searchSalesclerk helpTotal information search*

CANADA5.8485.2493.5554.884

U.S.A.6.1244.7153.4244.754

U.K.5.5085.3192.9004.576

F-stat., sig.1.084, .3743.299, .001a

1.439, .1791.288, .249

Post-hoc Contrasts (Scheffe Method)

Micro information search: Mean difference, standard error Significance

Canada/U.S.A.Canada/U.K.U.S.A./U.K.

1.0130.2220.791

.279

.336

.316

.002a

.804

.044a

§Covariates: age, income, family size, student status, marital status, and education.*Merged score of macro, micro, and salesclerk help.aSignificant at p < .05.

and family size. As expected, among Canadian and British respondents, bar-gain hunters tended to acquire macro information. Individuals with larger fam-ilies in the U.S. and Canada however, were less likely to comprehensivelygather the same. Finally, one personality variable differentially affected macroinformation search in two countries: while Canadian respondents holding lowbrand sensitivity (i.e., buyers of generic products) tended to search less, theirAmerican counterparts tended to search more.

The remaining variables that significantly influenced the degree of macrosearch were country-specific. Among the personality variables, American re-spondents that were characterized as opinion seekers tended to compare prod-uct alternatives and/or attributes to a greater extent. Contrary to expectations,British respondents that expressed a high attachment to the Christmas seasonwere less apt to gather macro information. Also unexpected was the findingamong Britons for the leadership characteristic–leaders in that country tendedto acquire less macro information. Four situational variables were significantonly for the Canadian sample. As expected, Canadians under time pressure,and/or utilizing a gift-shopping list were less apt to acquire macro information,while those encountering a good merchandise selection tended to deliberateover choices to a greater extent. Canadian subjects that reported shopping witha companion unexpectedly gathered more of this information type–it is possi-ble that more information was acquired because there was more than one per-son deliberating over the purchase decision. Among British respondents, thosesearching for a symbolic gift (i.e., one that conveys a specific message to therecipient) tended to gather more macro information, while those considering agift purchase for a more distant family relation (or non-relation) gathered less.No significant situational variables appeared for the American sample. Mostof the significant demographic variables were nation-specific. Among Cana-dian respondents, student and/or working individuals were less likely to gathermacro information, although those with higher education levels tended togather more. Among Americans, males (as expected) tended to acquire less in-formation than females. Finally, there was a positive association between theage of the youngest child living at home and macro information search amongBritish shoppers–respondents with older children generally acquired more in-formation.

Micro Information Search

Ten significant antecedent variables (4p, 4s, 2d) were obtained for the Ca-nadian sample, 4 variables (2p, 2s) were obtained for the American sample,and 6 variables (4p, 2d) were obtained for the British sample. As was the casewith macro information search, few predictor variables commonly affected

Cleveland et al. 25

TABLE 4. Significant Antecedent Variables of In-Store Information Search Behaviors

CANADA UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM

Variable Coeff.*, T P* Variable Coeff.*, T P* Variable Coeff.*, T P*

MACRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:Bargain hunterMotivated giverBudget mindedGeneric buyer

Situational vars.:Shopping comp.Good selectionShopping listTime pressure

Demo. vars.:Work statusStudent statusFamily sizeEducation

F-value: 8.357Adj. R2 = .413

.338, 4.30

.365, 4.79

.234, 2.97.160, 1.99

.262, 3.57

.222, 3.01.154, 2.05.162, 2.20

.309, 3.61.333, 4.05.186, 2.40

.141, 1.88

.000

.000

.004

.048

.001

.003

.043

.030

.000

.000

.018

.063

.000

MACRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:

Motivated giverBudget mindedGeneric buyerOpinion seeker

Situational vars.:

Demo. vars.:

Family size

Sex (m. vs. f.)

F-value: 15.072Adj. R2 = .322

.366, 5.30

.205, 3.21

.145, 2.21

.125, 1.93

.153, 2.41

.175, 2.57

.000

.002

.028

.055

.017

.011

.000

MACRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:Bargain hunterMotivated giverBudget minded

Trad. Xmas loverLeader

Situational vars.:

Symbolic giftWhom (gift for)

Demo. vars.:

Age child/home

F-value: 8.608Adj. R2 = .417

.298, 3.30

.360, 3.63

.224, 2.58

.335, 3.47.148, 1.72

.229, 2.65.163, 1.93

.154, 1.79

.001

.001

.012

.001

.089

.010

.057

.078

.000

MICRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:Motivated giverLeaderBudget mindedImportance/child

.205, 2.59.265, 3.21

.197, 2.55

.221, 2.89

.011

.002

.012

.005

MICRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:Motivated giver

Gift risk preocc.

.287, 3.99

.125, 1.84

.000

.068

MICRO SEARCHPersonality vars.:Motivated giver

Trad. Xmas loverFashion consciousBrand/store loyal

.610, 6.36

.289, 2.82.161, 1.75.248, 2.75

.000

.006

.085

.007

26

Situational vars.:Availability info.Actual gift costSymbolic giftGood selection

Demo. vars.:AgeWork status

F-value: 8.251Adj. R2 = .365

.161, 2.10

.224, 2.97

.173, 2.12

.128, 1.70

.221, 2.85.153, 2.03

038.004.036.091

.005

.045

.000

Situational vars.:

Good selectionShopping list

Demo. vars.:

F-value: 12.273Adj. R2 = .202

.170, 2.43

.181, 2.67.016.008

.000

Situational vars.:

Demo. vars.:Age

Sex (m. vs. f.)

F-value: 10.398Adj. R2 = .399

.194, 2.06

.215, 2.49

.042

.015

.000

SALESCLK HELPPersonality vars.:Brand/store loyalBargain hunterMotivated giver

Situational vars.:Costly giftPre-det. selectionAvailability info.Shopping list

Demo. vars.:Sex (m. vs. f.)Student statusIncome

F-value: 8.184Adj. R2 = .363

.228, 3.11.243, 3.25

.149, 2.01

.211, 2.76.137, 1.76

.177, 2.35.170, 2.20

.276, 3.65.239, 3.01.138, 1.74

.002

.001

.047

.007

.081

.020

.030

.000

.003

.085

.000

SALESCLK HELPPersonality vars.:Identity shaperImportance/child

Situational vars.:Costly gift

Symbolic giftWhom (gift for)

Demo. vars.:

Student status

Family size

F-value: 11.515Adj. R2 = .293

.150, 2.24.165, 2.53

.413, 6.42

.162, 2.45.182, 2.71

.158, 2.42

.114, 1.75

.027

.012

.000

.015

.007

.017

.082

.000

SALESCLK HELPPersonality vars.:Brand/store loyal

Opinion seeker

Situational vars.:Costly giftPre-det. selection

Demo. vars.:

Age

F-value: 8.391Adj. R2 = .303

.230, 2.49

.193, 2.08

.241, 2.43

.210, 2.18

.206, 2.19

.015

.040

.017

.032

.031

.000

27

micro information search among the three country samples. Once again, moti-vated givers generally gathered more product-specific information. Two vari-ables were found to have a positive impact on micro information acquisition intwo country samples: good selection and age. As expected, individuals fromCanada and the U.S. that reported encountering a good selection of merchan-dise were more likely to gather product-specific information. Contrary to ex-pectations however, older individuals in Canada and the U.K. were more apt toscrutinize micro information than were younger individuals.

The remaining variables that significantly affected the degree to which mi-cro information was acquired were country-specific. Among Canadian re-spondents, budget-minded individuals, as well as those according a highimportance to their children, generally gathered more micro information,while those characterized as leaders generally gathered less. American respon-dents that indicated having gift risk apprehensions predictably spent more timescrutinizing product-specific information. For the British sample, the three re-maining personality variables negatively affected micro information search–all of which were in contradiction of the hypothesized effects. TraditionalChristmas lovers, fashion-conscious individuals, as well as brand/store loyalindividuals were not more, but rather less apt to acquire product-specific infor-mation. Three situational variables were significant only for the Canadiansample. As expected, Canadians searching for a symbolic gift gathered moremicro information, as did those encountering an abundance of product/cate-gory information, and those that made an expensive gift purchase. Americansshopping from a gift list were also more apt to acquire product-specific infor-mation. Although the latter finding was contrary to expectations, it is possiblethat most gift lists contain only generalized information (such as the type ofclothing needed)–which would necessitate further search. No significant situa-tional variables appeared for the British sample. With respect to the remainingsignificant demographic variables, employed Canadians generally acquiredless micro information, as did female Britons. No significant demographicvariables appeared for the American sample.

Salesclerk Assistance

Ten significant antecedent variables (3p, 4s, 3d) were obtained for Canada,7 variables (2p, 3s, 2d) were obtained for the U.S., and 5 variables (2p, 2s, 1d)were obtained for the U.K. Only one antecedent variable appeared to influencethe degree to which salesclerk assistance was sought in all 3 countries: costlygift, which exhibited a positive relationship. Two variables were common for2 countries: brand/store loyal, and student status. Canadian and British indi-viduals characterized as brand or store loyal were more apt to consult store

28 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

salesclerks, while Canadian and American students were less apt to do thesame. Finally, one situational variable differentially affected salesclerk usagein 2 countries. Canadians with a predetermined selection tended to avoid sales-clerks, while their British counterparts were more likely to seek assistance.

The remaining variables that significantly affected salesclerk usage werecountry-specific. Among Canadian respondents, bargain-hunters generallyavoided salesclerks–perhaps to avoid being pressured into a more expensivegift purchase. As expected, motivated givers from Canada were more apt toseek assistance from store personnel, as were American and Briton individualscharacterized as identity shapers and opinion seekers, respectively. Unex-pected, however, was the negative association between salesclerk usage andAmerican individuals that accorded a high importance to their children. Forthe 2 remaining significant situational variables for Canadian respondents, thefindings were in the hypothesized directions. When shopping in store environ-ments where there was an abundance of information, Canadians were more aptto seek assistance; Canadians shopping from a gift list were less apt to do thesame. Perplexingly, Americans searching for a symbolic gift tended to avoidstore sales personnel, although those considering a gift purchase for a distantfamily (or non-) relation used salesclerks as a source of gift ideas and advice.Male Canadians used salesclerks to a greater extent than did female Canadi-ans, as did younger Britons when compared to older Britons. Canadians withlower incomes were more likely to consult salesclerks, as were Americanswith large families.

Comparing Regression Models

In order to definitively assess the differential impact of country with respectto the manner by which these antecedent variables combine to affect search be-haviors, a series of Chow tests (Chow, 1960) were performed to assess the sig-nificance of differences. This procedure uses an F-test to compare whetherseparate regression models of information search processes for each samplegroup are preferable to a single regression model for all three countries in apooled sample. For each country sample, a regression model using the sameindependent variables was tested against a model of all three countries pooledtogether. This procedure was done for each type of search behavior, followedby pairwise Chow tests in cases were the F-test was significant. As shown inTable 5, the results provide further indication of cross-cultural variations withrespect to the importance of the factors underlying in-store information searchbehaviors, thus repudiating proposition 2. For both macro and micro searchbehaviors, the country-specific models were superior to the pooled model interms of capturing the relationship between the antecedents and search behav-

Cleveland et al. 29

ior. Furthermore, pairwise tests indicate significant model variations betweenCanada and the United States on macro search, and between all three countriesfor micro search. Aside from the sales clerk assistance search type, it appearsthat there are significant differences between the three countries with respectto the roles that predictor variables play in determining information search be-haviors.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The findings reported in this study represent a snapshot of the characteris-tics and determinants of consumers’ in-store information search behaviors (fora Christmas gift purchase) across three countries. Common among subjects inthe three countries was the mean ordering of search type intensity/preference:subjects reported the greatest search effort for macro information, followed bymicro information, with salesclerk assistance ranked last. The three sampleswere also rather similar with respect to a number of general Christmas shop-ping characteristics (Table 6). Three search antecedent variables commonlyaffected search behaviors among the country samples: (1) as one might expect,highly motivated gift purchasers reported engaging in extensive macro and mi-cro search behaviors in order to maximize chances of selecting the ‘perfectgift’; (2) budget-minded consumers scrutinized macro information in order toget the best value for their money; and (3) subjects considering a costly giftpurchase preferred going directly to store sales personnel for advice. Thesefindings should be of interest to retailers that currently have operations in eachof the three countries (or to retailers that are considering entering any or all ofthese countries), from a planning and/or market forecasting perspective. Forexample, retailers should first ensure that a wide and organized selection of al-

30 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

TABLE 5. Summary of Results from Chow Tests

Search Type Pooled Sample Tests F-ratio P-value (1-tailed)

Macro search All 3 countries• Canada/U.S.• Canada/U.K.• U.S./U.K.

1.4191.5011.2021.447

0.054a

0.080a

0.2580.103

Micro search All 3 countries• Canada/U.S.• Canada/U.K.• U.S./U.K.

2.3462.9921.9131.944

0.000a

0.000a

0.019a

0.016a

Salesclerk help All 3 countries 1.090 0.337

ap < .10. A significant F-ratio indicates that the slopes or intercepts differ beyond chance between the groups.

ternatives is on hand, to enable product and price comparisons. Product-spe-cific labels and signage (including product attributes and prices) are the nextmost valued source of information, particularly among Canadian and Britishconsumers. Finally, retailers that offer premium apparel brands (i.e., ‘costlygift’) should have sales personnel standing by for consultation.

Significant differences were also found across the three country samples,with respect to (1) a number of general Christmas shopping characteristics,(2) the extent to which respondents engaged in micro search behaviors, and(3) the underlying relationships between the antecedents of search and searchefforts (Table 6). For example, compared to U.K. and U.S. subjects, a greaternumber of antecedents significantly influenced the search behaviors of Canadiansubjects; among generic-buying consumers, Americans were more apt to acquiremicro information, whereas Canadians were less apt to do the same. Given thatdifferences in search behaviors and the relative importance and/or directional

Cleveland et al. 31

TABLE 6. Summary of Key Findings

General Christmas shopping characteristics:

• Similarities exhibited across the 3 country samples included: (1) the average number of people thatgifts were purchased for, (2) the mean period in which Christmas shopping commenced that season,and (3) the average number of separate Christmas shopping trips taken that season.

• Differences uncovered across the 3 country samples included the following: (1) American respondentswere the most likely to cite that one or more media sources influenced their purchase choice, (2) Brit-ish respondents generally spent the least amount of time in the store where the clothing gift was pur-chased.

Multidimensionality of in-store search:

• In-store information search/acquisition is composed of 3 distinct dimensions: macro and micro infor-mation search, and salesclerk help.

• Across all 3 country samples, the extent/depth of search reported by respondents was highest formacro information, followed by micro information.

• The relative depth/breadth of search effort reported by subjects across the 3 countries is generallysimilar, with the exception of the degree to which micro (or product-specific) information was under-taken (respondents from Canada & U.K. reported higher scores than U.S. respondents did).

In-store search behaviors:

• Across the 3 country samples, it appears that different combinations of variables influence the degreeto which a particular search behavior is undertaken:

1. A greater variety of antecedent variables significantly influenced the three information search be-haviors for the Canadian sample (32 variables) than either for the British (19) or American (17)samples.

2. Fewer situational factors impacted on the search behaviors of British (4) and American (5) respon-dents, in comparison to Canadian respondents (12).

3. Among the antecedent variables, there were two instances where a factor differentially impactedon a particular search behavior, depending on the country-sample (generic buyers–Canadians ac-quired less micro information, whereas Americans acquired more; pre-determined giftselection–Canadians tended to avoid salesclerks, whereas Britons were more likely to seek theirassistance).

impact of search behaviors were obtained across three culturally and economi-cally similar countries, raises the probability that even greater differences onthese behaviors and variable relationships would exist between less similar na-tions. Consequently, international advertisers and retailers should resist thetemptation to directly apply brand/category communication strategies thathave been developed in one country or culture, without consideration of therole that culture may play in shaping: (1) the degree to which information typesare accessed by consumers, and (2) the manner in which antecedent variablescombine to impact the information search behaviors of shoppers.

Thus, an obvious direction for future research would be to include less simi-lar countries or cultures for comparison. The antecedents of gift search behav-iors in Oriental cultures are likely to vary in importance relative to Westerncultures. In Japan, for example, there exists a strong tradition of reciprocationand moral obligations with respect to gift giving (Beatty et al., 1991). How-ever, when considering the application of this type of research to culturally dis-similar nations, it is important to note that measuring instruments (such as thatof the current study) may have both culture-free and culture-bound properties.Given the increasing level of exchanges among cultures, future research oncross-cultural gift giving should consider including measures of ethnic identi-fication and acculturation. Future researchers should extend the spirit of thecurrent study to ascertain potential cross-cultural differences for other gift-giv-ing occasions, such as birthdays, weddings, and other annual holidays.

From a research perspective, our study makes three important contributions.First, using confirmatory factor analysis, we verified the multidimensionality ofin-store information search. Accordingly it is imperative for researchers to in-corporate multiple measures in order to capture distinct search behaviors. Sec-ond–and related to the first contribution–we have shown that it is possible forpredictor (antecedent) variables to positively impact search effort for one (ormore) search type, while negatively impacting search effort for another (orother) search type (for example, bargain hunter). This explanation may ac-count for some of the equivocal findings reported in the literature, as shown inTable 1. Third, we have fashioned and tested scales for the measurement ofin-store search effort as well as for the search antecedent variables, in across-national research context.

In light of their inherent complexity, international studies are generallyfraught with limitations. In the context of the present study, one major limi-tation concerns the differences in sample composition between the threecountries, thus reducing the degree to which the findings can be externallygeneralized. However, the fact that the subjects of this study were real con-sumers represents an improvement over previous cross-cultural studies thathave primarily employed student samples. The generalizability of the results is

32 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

also compromised by the low response rate among individuals sampled in theUnited States and the United Kingdom. Two possible explanations for the lowresponse rate are response fatigue (due to the length of the survey) and the lackof tangible incentives for respondents to complete the questionnaire. The useof recall data to model in-store information search behaviors may be limited interms of reliability (Newman & Lockeman, 1975). Future researchers couldimprove on the methodology employed in the current study by the inclusion oflongitudinal measures of search behaviors, based on observation rather thanself-reports. In addition, the reported relationships among the variables arecorrelational, not causal. Experimental or direct observation methods wouldbe required to properly assess causation. While yielding several interesting in-sights, our research on cultural differences with respect to the informationsearch and gift shopping behaviors of consumers was exploratory, and sets thestage for future research endeavors contrasting the shopping behaviors of moredistant cultures.

REFERENCES

Allenby, Greg M. & Ginter, James L. (1995), “The Effects of In-Store Displays andFeature Advertising on Consideration Sets,” International Journal of Research inMarketing, Vol. 12, 67-80.

Anderson, Ronald & Engledow, Jack (1977), “A Factor Analytic Comparison of U.S.and German Information Seekers,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 (March),185-196.

Anderson, James C. & Gerbing, David W. (1982), “Some Methods for RespecifyingMeasurement Models to Obtain Unidimensional Construct Measurement,” Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 19 (November), 453-460.

Andrus, David; Silver, Edward & Johnson, Dallas (1986), “Status Brand Managementand Gift Purchase: A Discriminant Analysis,” The Journal of Consumer Marketing,Vol. 3 (Winter), 5-13.

Banks, S. K. (1979), “Gift Giving and an Interactive Paradigm,” in Advances in Con-sumer Research, Vol. 5, W. Wilkie, (ed.), Association for Consumer Research, AnnArbor, MI, 319-324.

Beatty, Sharon E.; Kahle, Lynn R. & Homer, Pamela (1991), “Personal Values andGift-Giving Behaviors: A Study Across Cultures,” Journal of Business Research,Vol. 22, 149-157.

Beatty, Sharon E. & Smith, Scott M. (1987), “External Search Effort: An InvestigationAcross Several Product Categories,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14(June), 83-95.

Beatty, Sharon E.; Yoon, Mahn-Lee; Grunert, Suzanne C. & Helgeson, James G.(1996), “An Examination of Gift-Giving Behaviors and Personal Values in FourCountries,” in Gift Giving–A Research Anthology. Cele Otnes & Richard

Cleveland et al. 33

Beltramini (eds.), Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University PopularPress, 19-36.

Beardon, William O.; Netermeyer, Richard G. & Teel, Jesse E. (1989), “Measurementof Consumer Susceptibility to Interpersonal Influence,” Journal of Consumer Re-search, Vol. 15 (March), 473-481.

Belk, Russell W. (1976), “It’s the Thought that Counts: Assigned Digraph Analysis ofGift-Giving,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, 155-162.

Belk, Russell W. (1979), “Gift-Giving Behavior,” Research in Marketing, Vol. 2,95-126.

Belk, Russell W. (1984), “Cultural and Historical Differences in Concepts of Self andTheir Effects on Attitudes Toward Having and Giving,” in Advances in ConsumerResearch, Vol. 11, Thomas C. Kinnear (ed.), Association for Consumer Research,Provo, UT, 753-760.

Bettman, James R. (1979), “Memory Factors in Consumer Choice: A Review,” Jour-nal of Marketing, Vol. 43 (Spring), 37-53.

Bettman, James R., Johnson, Eric J. & Payne, John W. (1991), “Consumer DecisionMaking,” in Handbook of Consumer Research. T. S. Robertson, and H. H.Kassargian (eds.), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 50-84.

Blumenthal, Robin Goldwyn (1998), “Bottom Line for Some Retailers (If They HaveOne) is Christmas,” Barron’s, Vol. 78, No. 50, 50-51.

Bruner, Gordon C. II & Pomazal, Richard J. (1988), “Problem Recognition: The Cru-cial First Stage of the Consumer Decision Process,” The Journal of Consumer Mar-keting, Vol. 5, No. 1, 53-63.

Byrne, Barbara M. (1997), Structural Equation Modeling With EQS and EQS/Win-dows. London: Sage Publications.

Campbell, Nigel C. G.; Graham, John L.; Jolibert, Alain & Meissner, Hans Gunther(1988), “Marketing Negotiations in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and theUnited States,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 (April), 49-62.

Caplow, T. (1982). Christmas Gifts and Kin Network. American Sociological Review47, 383-392.

Cheal, David (1988), The Gift Economy, London: Routledge.Chow, Gregory C. (1960), “Test of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Lin-

ear Regressions,” Econometrica, Vol. 28 (July), 591-605.Clarke, Keith & Belk, Russell W. (1979), “The Effects of Product Involvement and

Task Definition on Anticipated Consumer Effort,” in Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 6, Wilkie, William (ed.), Ann Arbor, MI: Association for ConsumerResearch, 313-318.

Claxton, John O.; Fry, Joseph N. & Portis, Bernard (1974), “A Taxonomy ofPrepurchase Information Gathering Patterns,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.1 (February), 32-39.

Cox, Donald F. and Rich, Stuart (1964), “Perceived Risk and Consumer DecisionMaking–A Case of Telephone Shopping,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 1(February), 32-39.

Dawar, Niraj; Parker, Philip M. & Price, Lydia J. (1996), “A Cross-Cultural Study ofInterpersonal Information Exchange,” Journal of International Business Studies,3rd quarter, 497-516.

34 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Dommermuth, William P. & Cundiff, Edward W. (1967), “Shopping Goods, ShoppingCenters, and Selling Strategies,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 (January), 32-36.

Douglas, Susan P. (1976), “Cross-National Comparisons and Consumer Stereotypes:A Case of Working and Non-Working Wives in the U.S.A. and France,” Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 13, 12-20.

Douglas, Susan P. & Craig, Samuel (1983), International Marketing Research,Durvasula, Srinivas; Andrews, J. Craig; Lysonski, Steven & Netemeyer, Richard G.

(1993), “Assessing the Cross-National Applicability of Consumer BehaviorModels: A Model of Attitude Toward Advertising in General,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, Vol. 19 (March), 626-636.

Engel, James F.; Kollat, D. T. & Blackwell, R. D. (1973), Consumer Behavior, 2ndEdition, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Feick, Lawrence F. & Price, Linda L. (1987), “The Market Maven: A Diffuser of Mar-ketplace Information,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 (January), 83-97.

Fischer, Eileen & Arnold, Stephen J. (1990), “More than a Labor of Love: GenderRoles and Christmas Gift Shopping,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 (De-cember), 333-345.

Gilley, Mary C.; Graham, John L.; Wolfinbarger, Mary Finley & Yale, Laura J. (1998),“A Dyadic Study of Interpersonal Information Search,” Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 2, 83-100.

Green, Richard T. & Langeard, Eric (1975), “A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Con-sumer Habits and Innovator Characteristics,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 (July),34-41.

Grønhaug, Kjell (1972), “Buying Situations and Buyers Information Behavior,” Euro-pean Marketing Research Review, Vol. 7, 33-48.

Hawkins, Del I.; Best, Roger J. & Coney, Kenneth A. (1986), Consumer BehaviorStrategy: Implications for Marketing Strategy, Plano, TX: Business Publications.

Heeler, R., Francis, J., Okechuku, C., & Reid, S. (1979). Gift Versus Personal UseBrand Selection. In W. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, AnnArbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 325-328.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), “Motivation, Leadership and Organization: Do AmericanTheories Apply Abroad?” American Dynamics, Summer, 42-63.

Hoover, Robert J.; Green, Robert T. & Saegert, Joel (1978), “A Cross-National Studyof Perceived Risk,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 (July), 102-108.

Horton, R.L. (1979). “Some Relationships Between Personality and Consumer Deci-sion Making,” Journal of Marketing Research 16, 233-246.

Hugstad, Paul; Taylor, James W. & Bruce, Grady D. (1987), “The Effects of SocialClass and Perceived Risk on Consumer Information Search,” Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 1 (Summer), 47-52.

Jolibert, Alain & Carlos-Fernandez-Moreno (1983), “A Comparison of French andMexican Gift-Giving Practices,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10,Bagozzi & Tybout (eds.), Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research,191-196.

Katona, George & Mueller, Eva (1955), “A Study of Purchase Decisions,” in Con-sumer Behavior: The Dynamics of Consumer Reaction, Lincoln H. Clark (ed.),New York, NY: University Press, 30-87.

Cleveland et al. 35

Kiel, Geoffrey C. and Layton, Roger A. (1981), “Dimensions of Consumer Informa-tion Seeking,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 (May), 233-239.

Laroche, Michel; Kim, Chankon; Saad, Gad & Browne, Elizabeth (2000), “ACross-Cultural Study of In-Store Information Search Strategies for a ChristmasGift,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 42 (August), 113-126.

Lee, Hanjoon; Herr, Paul M.; Kardes, Frank R. & Kim, Chankon (1999), “MotivatedSearch: Effects of Choice, Accountability, Issue Involvement, and Prior Knowl-edge on Information Acquisition and Use,” Journal of Business Research, Vol. 45,75-88.

Locander, W.B. & Hermann, P.W. (1979), “The Effect of Self-Confidence and Anxi-ety on Information Seeking in Consumer Risk Reduction,” Journal of MarketingResearch 16 (May), 268-274.

Lowes, B.; Turner, J. & Wills, G. (1971), “Patterns of Gift-Giving,” in Exploration inMarketing Thought, G. Willis, (ed.), London: Bradford University Press, 82-102.

Lutz, Richard J. (1979), “Consumer Gift-Giving: Opening the Black Box,” in W.Wilkie (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 6, Ann Arbor, MI: Associationfor Consumer Research, 329-331.

Lutz, R. & Reilly, P. (1973), “An Exploration of the Effects of Perceived Social andPerformance Risk on Consumer Information Acquisition,” in Proceedings, 4th an-nual conference, The Association for Consumer Research, 393-405.

Mattson, B. E. (1982), “Situational Influences on Store Choice,” Journal of Retailing,Vol. 58, 46-58.

McGrath, M.A. (1989), “An Ethnography of a Gift Store: Trappings, Wrappings, andRapture,” Journal of Retailing 65, 4, 421-449.

Moore, William L. & Lehmann, Donald R. (1980), “Individual Differences in SearchBehavior for a Non-Durable,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7 (December),296-307.

Newman, Joseph W. (1977), “Consumer External Search: Amount and Determinants,”in Consumer and Industrial Buying Behavior, Woodside, Arch G.; Sheth, JagdishN.; & Bennett, Peter D. (eds.), New York: North Holland, 79-94.

Newman, Joseph W. & Lockeman, B. D (1975), “Measuring Prepurchase InformationSeeking,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2 (December), 216-222.

Newman, Joseph W. & Staelin, Richard (1971), “Multivariate Analysis of Differencesin Buyer Decision Time,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 8 (May), 192-198.

Newman, Joseph W. & Staelin, Richard (1972), “Prepurchase Information Seeking forNew Cars and Major Household Appliances,” Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.9 (August), 249-257.

Nordstrom, Kjall & Vahlne, Jan-Erik (1992), “Is the Globe Shrinking? Psychic Dis-tance and the Establishment of Swedish Sales Subsidiaries During the Last 100Years,” Working Paper, Institute of International Business, Stockholm School ofEconomics.

O’Donohoe, Stephanie (1995), “Attitudes to Advertising: A Review of British andAmerican Research,” International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 14, 245-261.

O’Grady, Shawna & Lane, Henry W. (1995), “The Psychic Distance Paradox,” Jour-nal of International Business Studies, 2nd Quarter, 309-333.

36 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Otnes, Cele C. (1990), A Study of Consumer External Search Strategies Pertaining toChristmas Shopping. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee.

Otnes, C., Lowrey, T.M., & Kim, Y.C. (1993), “Gift Selection for Easy and DifficultRecipients: A Social Roles Interpretation,” Journal of Consumer Research 20,229-244.

Price, Linda & Feick, Lawrence (1984), “The Role of Interpersonal Sources in Exter-nal Search: An Informational Perspective,” Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.10, 250-255.

Rigaux-Bricmont, B. (1993), “Intentions de Celui Qui Offre, Interprétation de CeluiQui Reçoit et Satisfactions Respectives dans l’Échange de Cadeaux de Noël EntreConjoints,” Proceedings of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada,Château Lac Louise: AB, 258-267.

Robertson, Thomas (1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication, New York:Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusions of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.Ronen, S. & Kraut, A.I. (1977), “Similarities Among Countries Based on Employee

Work Values and Attitudes,” Columbia Journal of World Business, Vol. 12, No. 2,89-96.

Ronen, S. & Shenkar, O. (1985), “Clustering Countries on Attitudinal Dimensions: AReview and Synthesis,” Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, 435-454.

Russo, J. Edward (1977), “The Value of Unit Price Information,” Journal of MarketingResearch, Vol. 14, No. 2, 34-46.

Ruth, Julie A.; Otnes, Cele C. & Brunel, Frederic (1999), “Gift Receipt and the Refor-mulation of Interpersonal Relationships,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25(March), 385-402.

Ryans, A.B. (1977). Consumer Gift Buying Behavior: An Exploratory Analysis. In O.Bellinger & B. Greenberg (Eds.), Contemporary Marketing Thought, Vol. 44, Chi-cago, American Marketing Association, 99-104.

Schaninger, C.M. & Sciglimpaglia, D. (1981), “The Influence of Cognitive PersonalityTraits and Demographics on Consumer Information Acquisition,” Journal of Con-sumer Research 8, 208-216.

Schmidt, Jeffrey B. & Spreng, Richard A. (1996), “A Proposed Model of ExternalConsumer Information Search,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.24, No. 3, 246-256.

Sethi, Prakash S. (1971), “Comparative Cluster Analysis for World Markets,” Journalof Marketing Research, Vol. 8 (August), 348-354.

Sherry, John F., Jr. (1983), “Gift Giving in Anthropological Perspective,” Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 10 (September), 157-168.

Sherry, John F., Jr. & McGrath, Mary Ann (1989), “Unpacking the Holiday Presence:A Comparative Ethnography of the Gift Store,” in Interpretive Consumer Re-search, ed. Hirshman, Elizabeth, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research,148-167.

Slama, Mark E. & Tashchian, Armen (1985), “Selected Socioeconomic and Demo-graphic Characteristics Associated with Purchasing Involvement,” Journal of Mar-keting, Vol. 49 (Winter), 72-82.

Cleveland et al. 37

Smith, Scott M. & Beatty, Sharon E. (1985), “An Examination of Gift Purchasing Be-havior: Do Shoppers Differ in Task Involvement, Search Activity, or Perceptions ofProduct Selection Risk?” in AMA Educator’s Proceedings, eds. Lusch et al., Chi-cago, IL: American Marketing Association, 69-74.

Sproles, George (1979), Fashion: Consumer Behavior Toward Dress, Minneapolis,MN: Burgess Publishing Company.

Sprott, D.E. & Miyazaki, A.D. (1995). Gift Purchasing in a Retail Setting: An Empiri-cal Examination. Proceedings of the AMA Winter Marketing Educators’ Confer-ence, Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1-19.

Swinyard, William R. & Sim, Cheng Peng (1987), “Perception of Children’s Influenceon Family Decision Processes,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 1,25-38.

Szymanski, David M.; Baradwaj, Sundar G. & Varadarajan, P. Rajan (1993), “Stan-dardization Versus Adaptation of International Marketing Strategy: An EmpiricalInvestigation,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 (October), 1-17.

Thorelli, Hans B. & Becker, Helmut (1980), “The Information Seekers: MultinationalStrategy Target,” California Management Review, Vol. 23 (Fall), 46-52.

Udell, Jon C. (1966), “Prepurchase Behavior of Buyers of Small Electrical Appli-ances,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30 (January), 50-52.

Urbany, Joel E.; Dickson, Peter R. & Wilkie, William L. (1989), “Buyer Uncertaintyand Information Search,” Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 (September),208-215.

Weinberger, Marc G. & Spotts, Harlan E. (1989), “A Situational View of InformationContent in TV Advertising in the U.S. and U.K.,” Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53(January), 89-94.

Wilkie, William R. & Dickson, Peter R. (1985), Shopping for Appliances: Consumers’Strategies and Patterns of Information Search. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Sci-ence Institute.

Wolfinbarger, Mary Findley (1990), “Motivations and Symbolism in Gift-Giving Be-havior,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, Goldberg et al. (eds.), Asso-ciation for Consumer Research, Provo, UT, 699-705.

Zeithaml, Valarie (1985), “The New Demographics and Market Fragmentation,” Jour-nal of Marketing, Vol. 49 (Summer), 64-75.

SUBMITTED: February 2002FIRST REVISION: June 2002

SECOND REVISION: August 2002ACCEPTED: December 2002

38 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

Cleveland et al. 39

APPENDIX 1

Dependent/Independent Factors

Factor Label Factor

• Item Load. Reliability (R2)

DEPENDENT (IN-STORE SEARCH) VARIABLES*Macro search effort

-I read all the signs around the display area of clothing items.-I walked around the store looking at the display of all the clothing mer-chandise.-I checked all the prices of clothing items very carefully.-I looked at all the items in the display area where I bought the clothinggift.

Salesclerk help-Store sales personnel helped me in making the choice of a clothinggift.-I asked store sales personnel for assistance about this clothing item.-I received a lot of help from the salesclerk on this clothing item.

Micro search effort-I very carefully read the manufacturer's label of this clothing item.-I very carefully examined the packaging information of this clothingitem.-I carefully examined the feel (texture) of this clothing item.

.565

.701

.732

.588

.814

.634

.710

.840

.836

.779

.319

.491

.535

.346

.663

.401

.504

.705

.699

.606

Reliability-Cronbachalpha

Can. U.S.A. U.K.

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES§

Time pressure-I felt pressed for time when I was shopping for this particular gift.-When I was Christmas shopping for this clothing item, I was reallypressed for time.-I felt rushed while Christmas shopping for this clothing item.

Shopping list-I bought this item from a list given to me by the recipient.-The recipient gave me a list to choose from.

Shopping companion-I was shopping with someone else who helped me in choosing thisclothing gift.-When I was shopping in the store, I consulted with a friend in choosingthis clothing gift.-I usually bring someone with me to help me pick out Christmas gifts.

Availability of information-The signs in this store were very helpful.-The pricing of items in this store was easy to find.

Reciprocal purchase-I often buy people Christmas gifts because I know they are buying onefor me.-If I expect to receive a gift from someone, it is important that I also pur-chase a gift for that person.-I anticipated receiving a Christmas gift from the person that I boughtthis clothing gift.

Pre-determined selection-I had everything decided about this garment before I got to the store.-I knew exactly what to buy for this recipient.

.898

.897

.824

.855

.827

.881

.806

.724

.777

.769

.749

.674

.614

.762

.716

.8905

.9165

.8354

.5718

.5785

.5838

.8446

.7857

.7200

.6980

.5486

.6033

.8084

.8676

.8447

.6568

.4929

.5255

40 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

APPENDIX 1 (continued)

Factor Label Factor Reliability-Cronbachalpha

• Item Load. Can. U.S.A. U.K.

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES§

Costly gift-The budget for this gift of clothing was higher than I usually set forother gifts.-The cost of the actual gift exceeded my budget for it.-This clothing gift was very expensive.

Good selection-There were many brands to choose from once I had decided whatto buy for this recipient.-It was very easy to shop around and compare other similar clothingitems.

Product familiarity-I have bought this type of clothing often in the past.-I felt quite knowledgeable about this clothing type before I beganshopping for the gift.

Symbolic gift-The clothing gift was reflective of the recipient's personality.-In choosing this clothing gift, I took into account the personality ofthe recipient.-I bought this clothing gift as a means of expressing my affection forthe recipient.

.857

.675

.561

.709

.686

.800

.748

.822

.796

.579

.6935

.4819

.6710

.5653

.5909

.4372

.6696

.6249

.6480

.5181

.5938

.7219

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS§

Traditional Christmas lover-Christmas is my favorite time of year.-I look forward to Christmas every year.-I am strongly attached to all the Christmas traditions.-I love the Christmas season.-It is important to get into the Christmas spirit by participating in theseason's traditional activities.-When it comes to Christmas, I follow all the traditional customs ofthe season.

Importance of children-I take a lot of time and effort to teach my children good habits.-My children are the most important thing in my life.-I try to arrange my home for my children's convenience.-When my children are ill in bed, I drop everything else to see totheir comfort.

Enjoyment of shopping-Shopping is one of my least favorite activities. (reversed)-I love to shop year round.-In general, I enjoy spending time browsing while shopping.-I have little or no interest in shopping. (reversed)

Brand/store loyal-I feel that there is a risk in shopping at stores other than the ones Iam familiar with.-I feel there is a risk in choosing clothing brands other than the onesthat I am familiar with.-I usually end up buying the same brand over and over.

.876

.871

.859

.851

.821

.813

.884

.845

.814

.793

.877

.827

.785

.729

.749

.737

.671

.9203

.6866

.8638

.6388

.9235

.8704

.8514

.7069

.9368

.8419

.8594

.6172

Cleveland et al. 41

Factor Label Factor Reliability-Cronbachalpha

• Item Load. Can. U.S.A. U.K.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS§

Identity Shaper-I often give Christmas gifts that help to shape the recipient's person-ality.-I often give Christmas gifts to people in order to reinforce some as-pects of their identity.

Bargain Hunter-I am willing to spend more time shopping in order to find bargains.-In general, I shop a lot for "specials" or discounts.-I feel I can obtain the lowest price by shopping extensively.-A person can save a lot of money by shopping around for bargains.

Generic Buyer-Store brands provide good value for what I pay.-Store brand clothing items are as good as nationally advertisedclothing brands.

Budget-minded-Money was no object for this particular clothing gift. (reversed)-I had a definite budget in mind before shopping for this clothing gift.-Price is the last thing I consider when I am buying a gift. (reversed)-I was reluctant to exceed my budget for this gift.

Leader-I am more independent than most people.-I think I possess more self-confidence than most people.-I like to be considered a leader.

Motivated giver-I visited a number of stores while shopping for this clothing gift.-I conduct a lot of research about what the person would enjoy be-fore I go shopping at Christmas.-I watch carefully the people I am buying gifts for, to see what theywould really like.

Fashion Conscious-I usually have one or more outfits that are of the latest style.-When I must choose between dressing for fashion or comfort, Ichoose the former.-An important part of my life and activities is dressing smartly.

Gift risk preoccupation-I would feel really bad if I bought someone a gift and they did notlike it.-I often worry about what can happen if I buy a Christmas gift forsomeone and they do not like it.-I will not like the consequences if the recipient does not like theclothing gift.

Opinion Seeker-I got ideas for the clothing gift from other people (not the recipient).-I consulted others for ideas before shopping for this particular gift.

.751

.711

.771

.729

.677

.670

.753

.748

.792

.693

.653

.533

.840

.756

.740

.704

.669

.617

.845

.716

.690

.809

.780

.512

.879

.870

.7435

.7637

.7166

.7223

.6960

.7058

.7009

.6055

.6455

.6052

.7945

.5894

.5906

.7224

.5228

.6276

.4744

.7127

.6783

.7844

.4862

.6393

.7576

.6168

.6841

.7085

.6985

*standardized solution, via confirmatory factor analysis (EQS)§principal components method, direct oblimin rotation (SPSS)

42 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL CONSUMER MARKETING

APPENDIX 2

Sample Demographic Characteristicsb

Variable Range/sig. Canada U.S.A. U.K. Total

Sample size 127 (32.4%) 179 (45.7%) 86 (21.9%) 392 (100%)

Gender FemaleMale

•2 = .075, p = .963

99 (78.0)28 (22.0)

140 (78.2)39 (21.8)

66 (76.7)20 (23.3)

305 (77.8)87 (22.2)

Age 0-29 years30-49 years50+ years

•2 = 102.70, p = .000a

25 (19.7)64 (50.4)38 (29.9)

139 (77.7)29 (16.2)11 (6.1)

40 (46.5)29 (33.7)17 (19.8)

204 (52.0)122 (31.1)66 (16.8)

Marital status Single/widowedSep./divorcedMarried/common

•2 = 41.78, p = .000a

37 (29.1)13 (10.2)77 (66.6)

112 (64.4)7 (4.0)

55 (31.6)

31 (36.5)9 (10.6)

45 (52.9)

180 (46.6)29 (7.5)

177 (45.9)

Income ($Can.) $ 0-39,999$40,000-79,999$80,000+

•2 = 47.68, p = .000a

31 (25.4)57 (46.7)34 (27.9)

105 (59.7)32 (18.2)39 (22.2)

27 (32.5)24 (28.9)32 (38.6)

163 (42.8)113 (29.7)105 (27.6)

Family size 1-2 persons3-4 persons5+ persons

•2 = 26.45, p = .000a

31 (24.4)77 (60.6)19 (15.0)

70 (39.8)56 (31.8)50 (28.4)

33 (39.3)32 (38.1)19 (22.6)

134 (34.6)165 (42.6)88 (22.7)

Education Elem./high schoolCollegeUndergrad. deg.Grad. deg. +

•2 = 21.36, p = .002a

17 (13.4)43 (33.9)53 (41.7)14 (11.0)

37 (21.6)41 (24.0)66 (38.6)27 (15.8)

21 (24.4)11 (12.8)31 (36.0)23 (26.7)

75 (19.5)95 (24.7)

150 (39.1)64 (16.7)

Employment status WorkingNot working

•2 = 13.97, p = .001a

62 (48.8)65 (51.2)

54 (31.0)120 (69.0)

44 (51.2)42 (48.8)

160 (41.3)227 (58.7)

Student status StudentNon-student

•2 = 68.01, p = .000a

20 (15.7)107 (84.3)

105 (60.3)69 (39.7)

23 (26.7)63 (73.3)

148 (38.2)239 (61.8)

Age youngest child(if applicable)

MeanF-stat. = .796, p = .453

12.7 11.65 9.86 11.53

aIndicates significance (2-sided, Pearson), at alpha = .05bCountry totals may differ across categories due to missing/incomplete data.