32 Cross Cultural Management

Cross-Cultural Differences in Consumer

Decision-Making Styles
Cheryl Leo, Rebekah Bennett and Charmine E. J. Härtel

The Authors
Cheryl Leo is a doctoral candidate at the UQ Business School, University of
Queensland, Australia

Rebekah Bennett holds a Doctor of Philosophy in the area of marketing and is a

lecturer in the UQ Business School, University of Queensland, Australia.

Charmine E. J. Härtel is Professor of Strategic Business, Director of the Centre for

Business Research, and Associate Dean of Research for the Faculty of Business and
Law at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia.

Introduction

The domain of management refers to the organisation of people, processes, prod-

ucts and markets. In this era of globalisation, part of the debate in management is
whether regional markets should be considered as unique and requiring cust-
omised management tools and techniques, or whether the same management
tools and techniques can be applied across different marketplaces. One way that
scholars have sought to address these questions is through the study of cross-cul-
tural consumer decision-making styles.

Consumer decision-making style refers to the mental orientation or

approach a consumer has towards making choices. Although, consumer decision-
making style represents a relatively consistent pattern of cognitive and affective
responses (Bennett & Kassarjian, 1972), national culture has been proven to im-
pact significantly on individual values and attitudes (Hofstede, 1980), thus, cul-
ture is expected to have a significant influence on consumer decision-making
style. This paper will adopt consumer research into decision-making styles to
enhance understanding of differing decision-making styles between cultures tradi-
tionally regarded as contrasting, i.e. East and West. In particular, this paper ex-
amines and adds evidence to the specific cultures of Singapore and Australia.

To date, little research examines cross-cultural differences in consumer deci-

sion-making. There is evidence of cultural differences in consumer decision-mak-
ing styles for fashion (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hiu, Siu, Wang & Chang, 2001; Lysonski,
Durvasula & Zotos, 1996), although, no study has examined whether this effect
extends to the purchase of goods in general. In an increasingly globalised busi-
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 33

ness environment, it is imperative that marketing management learn about differ-

ences in consumer decision-making. The success of an organisation in a culturally
different market place may be largely affected by how well the decision-makers
grasp the consumers’ buying behaviours, and how well they are able to incorpo-
rate such understanding into their marketing plan and strategies. We address this
gap with a cross-cultural study of consumer decision-making styles in the context
of goods purchases using the Consumer Styles Index (CSI) (Sproles & Kendall,
1986).

The choice of Singapore and Australia as the cultures for this study was
made for two reasons; first, they are significant trading partners in the Asia Pacific
region (East & Lloyd, 2001). Second, these countries have a dominant culture
based on cultural heritage, Australia is Anglo-Saxon and Singapore is Chinese.
Therefore, the objective of this research is to compare the decision-making styles
of two important trading partners with different cultural heritage in the Asia-Pa-
cific region.

Consequently, this paper aims to demonstrate that consumer decision-mak-

ing styles for goods differs according to consumers’ cultural orientation and that
consumer behaviour can be predicted from an understanding of the cultural per-
sonality of consumers. We integrate the concept of CSI with Hofstede’s typology
of culture and test empirically predictions from the framework on a sample of
consumers from Australia and Singapore.

The paper begins with a discussion of CSI followed by a justification of the

use of Hofstede’s typology as a cultural framework. Then, we present our ratio-
nale for using consumer samples drawn from Singapore and Australia, followed
by the development of hypotheses, method and results. Finally, the implications of
the findings are discussed.

Literature Review

Consumer Decision-Making Styles

Previous literature has identified three ways to characterise consumer deci-

sion-making styles: the consumer typology approach, the psychographics/lifestyle
approach, and the consumer characteristics approach (Sproles & Kendall, 1986).
The consumer typology approach seeks to categorise consumers into groups or
types that are related to retail patronage (Bellenger & Korgaonkar, 1980; Darden
& Ashton, 1974; Darden & Reynolds, 1971). Such studies have focused typically
on specific products, product groups or on the general retail marketplace (West-
brook & Black, 1985).

The psychographics/lifestyle approach identifies over a hundred characteris-

tics related to consumer behaviour based on general personality traits, or general
needs and values associated with the consumer’s general activities interests or life-
34 Cross Cultural Management

styles (Lastovicka, 1982; Wells, 1974). Lastly, the consumer characteristics ap-
proach emphasises the cognitive and affective orientations towards purchasing in
consumer decision-making (Westbrook & Black, 1985). This approach holds the
assumption that consumers possess cognitive and affective orientations to deter-
mine their consumer decision-making styles (Fan & Xiao, 1998; Sproles & Kend-
all, 1986).

The three approaches provide for a unified theme that consumers approach
the market with basic decision-making styles (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). How-
ever, the consumer characteristics approach has been perceived to be more pow-
erful and explanatory than the consumer typology or psychographics approaches
due to its focus on consumers’ mental orientation (Lysonski, Durvasula & Zotos,
1996). Therefore, the characteristics approach will be used in this paper.

Consumer characteristics in decision-making can be measured via an exami-

nation of consumer styles. The CSI contains eight consumer decision-making
styles and has been used to investigate consumers in cultures of China, South Ko-
rea, United States (U.S.), New Zealand, Greece, United Kingdom and Germany
(Fan & Xiao, 1998; Hafstrom, Chae & Chung, 1992; Hiu, Siu, Wang & Chang,
2001; Lysonski, Durvasula & Zotos, 1996; Mitchell & Bates, 1998; Shim & Gehrt,
1996). These styles are: quality conscious, brand conscious, innovation/fashion
conscious, recreation conscious, price conscious, impulsive, confused by
overchoice and brand loyalty. Each of these will be discussed later, in the devel-
opment of the hypotheses.

Hofstede’s Typology of Culture

While the world becomes increasingly globalised some have posed that homogeni-
sation of consumer behaviour is also occurring, however, there is little empirical
evidence for this view (see Argrawal 1995 for a review). In her classic article on
international consumer behaviour, de Mooij (2000, p105) points out that ‘al-
though there is evidence of convergence of economic systems, there is no evidence
of convergence of peoples’ value systems”.

Cultural assumptions underlie our thoughts (Hoppe, 2004) and ultimately

our decisions. Culture refers to the dynamic process that occurs within a given so-
ciety group and which creates the cognitive map of beliefs, values, meaning and
attitudes that drive perception, thoughts, reasoning, actions, responses and inter-
actions (Tung, 1995). Thus, culture impacts on what is seen as most important
within a country (Hoppe, 2004). Unsurprisingly then, major cultural differences
in cognition, emotion and motivation have been identified (Markus & Kitayama,
1991).

Hofstede’s seminal typology of cultural dimensions debuted in 1980 and

continues to dominate in studies of management and marketing scholars (Furrer,
Liu & Sudharshan, 2000). It characterised culture with five dimensions: power
 Volume 12 Number 3 2005 35

distance or the degree of equality among people in society, the dimension labelled
uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which people are able to tolerate
ambiguity. Countries which score high on this dimension have low tolerance for
ambiguity, are highly formalised and tend to resist innovation. The dimension of
masculinity/femininity or the degree to which masculine and feminine values are
distinct, individualism/collectivism or the degree to which people act as a group
or as individuals, and long-term orientation or the degree to which people delay
gratification of their material, social and emotional needs. Although these dimen-
sions are independent statistically and occur in all possible combinations, some
combinations are more common than others (Hofstede, 1980).

Hofstede (2001) undertook research on 72 countries that demonstrates cul-

tural differences on the basis of his five dimensions. The results for Australia and
Singapore are reproduced in Table I.

Table I. Scores on Hofstede’s Dimensions for Australia and Singapore.

Power Uncertainty Individualism/ Masculinity/ Long/short term

Distance Avoidance Collectivism Femininity orientation

Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

Australia 36 41 51 37 90 2 61 16 31 22-24

Singapore 74 13 8 53 20 39-41 48 28 48 9

Hofstede (2001, p500)

In one of the first marketing studies to apply Hofstede’s typology to con-

sumer behaviour, de Mooij (2000) found consumption of mineral water, cars and
the internet varied across Hofstede’s dimensions. In a further study, de Mooij col-
laborated with Hofstede (de Mooij & Hofstede, 2002) to identify differences in
consumption of a range of products for each dimension. Thus, this research builds
on de Mooij’s research by providing empirical evidence of how consumer-behav-
iour styles vary.

Culture, thus, underlies the way consumers think and is understandably

highly important in the decision-making process. We explore this through a study
of cross-cultural consumer decision-making styles. An important issue to note here
is that “people do not carry separate mental programs for work and non-work sit-
uations” (Hofstede, 1980, p92). This means that individual behaviour in a con-
sumer setting provides insight into their overall cross-cultural behaviour, and any
patterns or trends are likely to be seen in other aspects of their life such as
work-life. Subsequently, the study of cross-cultural consumer decision-making
will be highly beneficial for management.
36 Cross Cultural Management

Hypotheses Development

How Cultural Background Affects Consumer Decision-Making Styles

There are eight different decision-making styles as proposed by Sproles and Kend-
all (1986): quality-conscious, brand-conscious, innovative/fashion-conscious, rec-
reation-conscious, price-conscious, impulsive, confused by overchoice and
brand-loyal. Based on the above discussion of culture, we next discuss how cul-
tural background might influence these consumer decision-making styles. The the-
oretical framework proposed by this paper is outlined in Table II which shows the
expected decision-making styles for Singapore and Australia based on Hofstede’s
typology of culture.

Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style

A significant factor in consumer decision-making is quality. Quality conscious con-

sumers search for the best quality products by shopping systematically and care-
fully (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Quality-conscious decision-making implies the
perception of a hierarchy of quality levels. Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimension
of power distance deals with inequality in prestige, wealth and power. Therefore,
cultures with higher power distance would be more likely to engage in the quality
conscious decision-making style as it refers to hierarchy vs. equality. Previous re-
search supports this assertion. For instance, Chinese immigrants have been found
to exhibit more extensive search behaviour than Americans in a supermarket envi-
ronment due to quality seeking (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001).

The seeking of quality also implies a desire for a product that will last. Em-
pirical research indicates support for this proposition. Specifically, Chinese
consumers devoted more time towards searching for products of high quality and
performance because they expect products to last (Doran, 2002). In this dimen-
sion, Singapore scored high with 74 (out of 100) for power distance and Australia
scored 36 (Hofstede, 2001). These scores for power distance indicate that
Singaporeans are more concerned with hierarchy among people in society and
this may translate into a perception of hierarchy amongst products of varying
quality, particularly if high quality is associated with people who hold higher posi-
tions in society. For example, quality circles have been implemented more effec-
tively in Japan than they have in the U.S. as ‘quality’ has more meaning for the
Japanese (Ghosh & Lim, 1991). Specifically:

H1: There will be a significant difference in quality consciousness between

Australians and Singaporeans. Singaporeans are expected to be more quality
conscious.
 Table II. Implications of Hofstede’s Typology for Consumer Decision-Making
Power distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculine Long term
avoidance orientation orientation
Definition Inequality in prestige, Tolerance for Emphasis is on Emphasis is on ego-goals Stability, persistence and re-
wealth and power ambiguity the individual such as careers and money spect for tradition
rather than the
group
Hofstede’s High Low Low Low High
Singapore
Score
Volume 12 Number 3 2005

Hofstede’s Low High High High Low

Australian
Score
Quality Power distance in-
conscious volves a hierarchy of
quality rather than
equality
Brand Status and prestige Lack of need for
conscious can be reflected approval from
through brands the group for
particular
brands. Brands
express the in-
dividual
Innovative High risk pro- Less concerned Greater emphasis on mate- Tradition outweighs the need
pensity and with making rial goods and increases for variety or innovation
low resistance mistakes in propensity to purchase new
to change front of others things
Recreation - - - - -
conscious
37
 38
Table II. Implications of Hofstede’s Typology for Consumer Decision-Making (Continued)
Power distance Uncertainty Individualism Masculine Long term
avoidance orientation orientation
Price Individualist cul- Price-conscious behaviour re-
conscious tures are more sults in items bought for less,
price sensitive more goods can be accumu-
and don’t care lated
about being
perceived as
‘cheap’. Low
price often
means low
quality.
Impulse- Require little
bu y i n g information be-
fore acting, re-
sist innovation
and change
Confused by Less likely to Tend to rely
Overchoice consider a more on own
greater range sources of infor-
of product in- mation rather
formation and than social net-
alternatives. works for infor-
mation
Brand Brand loyalty is Brands used to Long-term time orientation
loyal a risk reduc- express individ- promotes continuity
tion strategy ual identify.
and thus less
likely.
* Note the comments in the table relate to high levels of the dimension
Cross Cultural Management
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 39

Brand Conscious Decision-Making Style

Brand conscious decision-making refers to a consumer’s orientation towards the

purchase of expensive and well-known brands. There are two dimensions of
Hofstede’s study that have relevance for this decision-making style; individual-
ism/collectivism and uncertainty avoidance. Brands are symbols of status and
prestige. Eastern cultures, having high power distance, perceive social status and
prestige as important (Hofstede, 2001). As Eastern cultures have a higher power
distance and are collectivistic, which is associated with the concept of ‘face’ and
social harmony, consumers in Eastern cultures are expected to have a higher need
to maintain prestige and status (Ho, 1976) and, thus, a higher level of brand con-
scious decision-making.

Following this line of argument, it would be expected that Singaporeans

would be more brand conscious than Australians. However, brands are used to
convey fashion consciousness for individualistic cultures (Manrai, Lascus, Manrai
& Babb, 2001). Brands are symbols that convey meanings to consumers. Some
brands such as BMW convey meanings of prestige and quality, and some brands,
such as Virgin Blue airlines, convey meanings relating to low price. Brands assist
consumers in effort minimisation and provide a sense of familiarity. This reduces
the risk involved in purchasing (Lehmenn & Winer, 1997), and appeals to con-
sumers who have high uncertainty avoidance. Bao, Zhou and Su’s (2003) research
offers support for this in their study on Chinese and American decision-making
styles. Their results indicated that Chinese were less brand conscious despite be-
ing a culture that places high emphasis on ‘saving face’. Hofstede’s (2001) scores
indicate that Australia is high in uncertainty avoidance (with a score of 51) com-
pared to Singapore (8). Thus, on the basis of these scores we hypothesise that:

H2: There will be a significant difference in brand consciousness between Australians

and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more brand conscious.

Innovative Decision-Making Style

An innovative decision-making style refers to consumers that seek variety and

novelty in their purchase decisions (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982). There appears
to be conflict in the literature in terms of the likelihood of Australians and
Singaporeans being innovative. The two contrasting approaches will be addressed
and then the hypothesised position outlined. According to Hofstede, the predispo-
sition to purchase new and different products and brands is related to two cultural
characteristics, namely, high individualism and future orientation (long-term ori-
entation) (Hofstede, 1980). These characteristics are present predominantly in
Western cultures, as compared to Eastern cultures (Hofstede, 2001).

Consumer innovativeness was found to be more prevalent in cultures that

are more individualistic, masculine and lower in uncertainty avoidance
(Steenkamp, Hofstede & Wedel, 1999). For instance, consumers with individualis-
40 Cross Cultural Management

tic and masculine values are less likely to be concerned with the image they por-
tray to others and they value new things. They possess variety-seeking tendencies
due to the cultural assumption that choice is indicative of an act of self-expression
(Kim & Droplet, 2003). Alternatively, consumers that are high in uncertainty
avoidance and past time orientation need to resist novely or change.

Spears, Lin and Mowen (2001) also reported that the future time orientation
of a U.S. sample served as a strong predictor of innovative purchases as opposed
to the past time orientation of the Chinese, which focused on tradition and conti-
nuity. Further, support of the difference between Eastern and Western innovation
decision-making styles comes from Burns and Brady (1992) in their study of need
for uniqueness found that a U.S. student sample was considerably less concerned
with others’ reactions to one’s ideas and actions than a Malaysian sample.

So far, the research presented provides support for the Hofstede approach
which would predict Australians to be more innovative than Singaporeans based
on their cultural heritage. However, Singaporeans scored low and Australians
high on the uncertainty avoidance dimension, thus, contradicting the expected be-
haviour of Eastern and Western consumers. Nakata and Sivakumar (1996) pro-
posed that low levels of uncertainty avoidance facilitate the phase of new product
development. The context of new product development and Singapore’s distinc-
tively low level of uncertainty avoidance suggests the notion that innovativeness is
acceptable to Singaporean consumers.

Singapore arguably is unusual among Asian countries in its economic tradi-

tions. Its economy has been based on high technology adoption and government
strategies have focused on pushing advanced technology and related skill develop-
ment (Ebner, 2004). Similarly, Australia can be viewed as somewhat unique
among Western countries in its economic traditions. Often referred to as the
‘Lucky Country’ because of its abundance of natural resources, the Australian
economy still relies largely on revenue from raw materials. Although Australians
possess higher scores for individualism and are more long-term orientated, which
are features of an innovative culture, they are also risk averse and higher in uncer-
tainty avoidance. It is, therefore, reasonable to posit that due to Singaporeans’ low
level of uncertainty avoidance, combined with the innovative policies of Singa-
pore, Singaporean consumers are likely to be more innovative-focused in their de-
cision-making.

H3: There will be a significant difference in innovativeness between Australians and

Singaporeans. Hofstede’s work and the economic traditions of Singapore and
Australia suggest that Singaporeans will be more innovative.

Recreation Conscious Decision-Making Style

Recreation conscious and hedonistic shopping refers to the extent to which shop-
ping is considered pleasurable and fun (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Pleasure and
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 41

fun are internal states and, thus, are unlikely to be effected by cultural display
rules. Display rules refer to prescribed norms for verbal and nonverbal displays
and people modify their expressions on the basis of these cultural display rules
(Ekman & Friesen, 1969).

Thus, cultural display rules are societal prescribed norms for verbal and non-
verbal expression. As such, culture is not expected to influence the experienced
pleasure of shopping but rather the types of shopping pursued. Therefore, no dif-
ferences between Eastern and Western cultures are predicted for this dimension.
It should be noted, however, that some empirical evidence exists to support cul-
tural differences. For example, Doran (2002) reported that Chinese found more
enjoyment in searching and shopping in comparison to North Americans. As such:

H4: There will be no significant difference in recreation consciousness between

Australians and Singaporeans.

Price Conscious Decision-Making Style

Price conscious has been defined as a buyer’s “unwillingness” to pay a higher price
for a product and/or “the exclusive focus” on paying low prices (Lichtenstein,
Ridgway & Netemeyer, 1993, p. 235). Similar to brand conscious decision-mak-
ing, collectivist cultures are expected to be more concerned with the status attrib-
uted to a given brand and more sensitive to maintaining prestige and status (Ho,
1976; Zhou & Nakamoto, 2001).

Given the masculine orientation of Western cultures which places emphasis

on ego-goals such as careers and money (Hofstede, 2001), price-conscious deci-
sion-making means that items are bought for less and, thus, more material goods
can be accumulated. Similarly, Gong (2003) postulates that Chinese consumers
have a lower price limit for value, compared to Westerners. Based on this, Austra-
lians are expected to record higher values on this dimension than Singaporeans.
As price is often an indicator of quality, and quality is proposed to be more impor-
tant to Singaporeans than Australians, we propose that:

H5: There will be a significant difference in price consciousness between Australians

and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more price conscious.

Impulse Buying Decision-Making Style

Impulse buying is defined as an unplanned purchase (Rook & Hoch, 1985). Cul-
tures high in uncertainty avoidance (UAI), (such as Australians), would be ex-
pected to be less inclined to impulse buy. They tend to require more information
before acting, and resist innovation and change. However, Australians are also
high in individualism where the interests of the individual take priority with the
pleasure gained by the purchase and would be supportive of impulse buying.
42 Cross Cultural Management

Kacen and Lee (2002) found that consumers from collectivist societies engaged in
less impulse buying than individualist consumers.

Furthermore, the Japanese exhibited more action control than Americans

(Abe, Bagozzi & Sadarangani, 1996), and impulse buying was reported to be
more prevalent in North Americans than Chinese consumers (Doran, 2002).
However, Singaporeans have a distinctively low UAI (8) score and, thus, are toler-
ant of ambiguity and are likely to impulse buy as compared to Australians that
have a high UAI score (51). In support, Li, Zhou, Nicholls, Zhuang & Kranendonk
(2004) found the same number of unplanned purchases for both U.S. and Chinese
shoppers, and a higher number of planned purchases for U.S. shoppers. Hence, on
the basis of these scores, we propose:

H6: There will be a significant difference in impulse buying between Australians and
Singaporeans. Singaporeans are expected to be more impulsive.

Confused By Overchoice Decision-Making Style

Consumers are confused by overchoice when they experience information over-

load. It is expected that Singaporeans will be less cognitively overloaded in pur-
chase decisions than Australians because of the type of cues they use to make
choices. For instance, Eastern consumers have been found to make more effective
inter-comparison between brands and attributes, as opposed to Western consum-
ers who made more effective evaluations based on individual attributes of a single
brand (Cowley, 2002). Western consumers are less likely to avoid uncertainty and
more open to innovation and change, and they are likely to consider a greater
range of product information and alternatives. People from Western cultures have
also been shown to be more focused on specific objects compared to people from
Eastern cultures, who took on a broader contextual view (Nisbett, 2003). Simi-
larly, Cowley (2002) found that western consumers based their evaluation on in-
dividual attributes of a single brand in comparison to Eastern consumers who took
a more holistic view of products.

Furthermore, people of Chinese background, due to their collectivistic na-

ture, searched more and relied on social networks for information as compared to
the North Americans, who used a variety of information sources (Doran, 2002;
Hofstede, 2001). Cultures that score highly on the Hofstede (2001) dimension of
uncertainty avoidance may feel stressed by the ambiguity that too many choices
present. Thus, Australians, who are exposed to a wide variety of product choices,
may feel overloaded due to their need low tolerance of uncertainty. Therefore, we
hypothesise that:

H7: There will be a significant difference in ‘confused by overchoice’ between

Australians and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more confused by
overchoice.
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 43

Brand Loyal Decision-Making Style

Brand loyalty measures the extent to which consumers form habitual purchases
and remain with their favourite brands or stores (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Brand
loyalty is a risk reduction strategy, which is consistent with Hofstede’s (2001) cul-
tural dimension of UAI as uncertainty avoidance increases risk aversion (Yau,
1988). Consumers high in UAI (such as Australians) prefer to avoid uncertainty
and are likely to use the familiarity of brands to reduce ambiguity.

This is supported by the following studies. One study showed a stronger per-
ceived risk and brand loyalty relationship in the U.S. than in Thailand (Verhage,
Yavas, Green & Borak, 1990). The other study showed that Australians made
more habitual purchases than the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) Chinese (Lowe
& Corkindale, 1998). We, therefore, hypothesise that:

H8: There will be a significant difference in brand loyalty between Australians and
Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more brand loyal.

Methodology

Awareness of the importance of cross-cultural research has increased for both re-
searchers and practitioners and is likely to continue growing (Malhotra, Argarwal
& Peterson, 1996). A key issue when undertaking cross-cultural research is the
comparability of the phenomenon and the meaning attached to survey items in
each culture (Malhotra, Argarwal & Peterson, 1996). The selection of two coun-
tries where English is a primary language assists in overcoming this difficulty as
well as the research team which comprises individuals who are citizens of both
countries. As such, the survey was issued in English in both countries.

Data were collected through a mail questionnaire in English (while Chinese

is an official language of Singapore, people are educated and day-to-day commu-
nication occurs in English). This study compares and examines the differences on
CSI between Anglo-Saxon Australians and Singaporean Chinese residents in Sin-
gapore and Australia. Anglo-Saxon and Chinese are the dominant racial cultures
in these countries. Furthermore, both countries are considered developed econo-
mies and have economic links in importing and exporting goods and services be-
cause Australia is part of the ASEAN free trade area (East & Lloyd, 2001).

Sample

An intrinsic case study design was the research strategy adopted for the study.
This research focused on only two cases (samples) as the purpose was analytic
theoretical generalisation and not statistical generalisation, and so the number of
44 Cross Cultural Management

case studies employed was sufficient for the purpose required (Yin, 1994). In ad-
dition, real life samples were used instead of student samples which are dominant
in the previous studies of the CSI. The use of real life samples increases the valid-
ity of the findings for real business life as the respondents are real consumers
(Ulijn, 2000).

Berg (1998) identifies four types of sampling strategies for research – pur-
posive, systematic, stratified and random. Random sampling is where every unit in
the population has the same probability of being chosen. The intention is to pro-
duce a representative sample. This sampling technique was employed as the pur-
pose of the research was to compare two cultures at a broad level.

A random sample was drawn from residents of Australia and Singapore. The
response rates were 24.8% for Singapore and 30.3% for Australia (this included
all returned surveys). After deleting incomplete surveys and responses from
non-Anglo-Saxon (Australia) and non-Chinese residents (Singapore), the useable
sample consisted of 352 for Singapore and 182 for Australia. Anecdotal com-
ments regarding consumer attitudes in Singapore influenced the decision to dou-
ble the amount issued in Singapore, however, this proved unnecessary as the
response rate from Singapore was reasonable and within acceptable limits. The
data were tested for non-response bias using the method recommended by
Armstrong and Overton (1977) where key demographics of waves of early and
late respondents are compared. There were no significant differences and, thus,
non-response bias was not a concern in this study.

The majority of respondents in both samples were females with 54.83% of

the Singaporean and 64.29% of the Australian sample. The mean age range was
32–36 years for the Singaporean sample and 27-31 for the Australian sample.
The Australian respondents were relatively equally distributed between married,
never married and de-facto categories, however, there were no de facto relation-
ships indicated by the Singaporeans and most (73.86%) were married. The cur-
rency was in local denominations, but when converted, the mean income range
for Singaporeans was Aud$26,000–$30,249 and Aud$26,000-$31,199 for the
Australian sample. These differences were tested for significance with the results
indicating that the differences in gender, marital status, and age were significant.
An ANCOVA test was conducted and revealed that there were no significant rela-
tionships between these potential covariates and the dependent variables.

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of demographic questions and items for the consumer
decision-making index (Sproles & Kendall, 1986). Respondents were asked to in-
dicate their cultural background. For the purposes of this research, only the re-
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 45

sponses from Singaporeans with Chinese backgrounds and Australian’s with

Anglo-Saxon backgrounds were used.
Each of the eight factors in the CSI (Sproles & Kendall, 1986) consisted of a
range of items (see Table III). To recap, these factors are quality conscious, brand
conscious, innovative/fashion conscious, recreation conscious, price conscious,
impulse buying, confused by overchoice and brand loyal decision-making styles.
The items for the innovativeness factor were altered as the original scale was only
concerned with fashion and the statements were heavily skewed towards this
product type. In this research, we sought a more general approach to purchasing
goods rather than a specific product type and, thus, the items were adapted from
Raju’s (1980) scale of innovativeness in shopping. The respondents were pre-
sented with the items in Likert-style format with a five-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The higher the score the higher the
respondent rated on that factor.
Table III.
Measures for the Eight Decision-Making Styles
Quality Conscious Decision-Making Style (8 items)
(1) Getting very good quality goods/services is very important to me.
(2) When it comes to purchasing goods/services, I try to get the very best or perfect choice.
(3) In general, I usually try to buy the best overall quality for goods/services.
(4) I make special effort to choose the very best quality goods/services.
(5) I really don’t give my goods/services purchases much thought or care.
(6) My standard and expectations for goods/services I buy are very high.
(7) I shop quickly, buying the first good/service I find that seems good enough.
(8) A good/service doesn’t have perfect, or the best to satisfy me.

Brand Conscious Decision-Making Style (7 items)

(1) The well-known national brands of goods/services are best for me.
(2) The more expensive brands of goods/services are usually my choice.
(3) The higher the price of a good/service, the better its quality.
(4) Nice department and specialty stores offer me the best goods/ Up-market or specialty ho-
tels offer me the best services.
(5) I prefer buying the best selling brands of goods/services.
(6) The most advertised brands of goods/services are usually very good choices.
(7) A good/service doesn’t have to look perfect or the best, to satisfy me.

Innovative in Shopping Decision-Making Style (10 items)

(1) When I see a new or different brand of good/service, I often buy it just to see what it is like.
(2) I am the kind of person who would try any new good/service once.
(3) A new store or restaurant is not something I would be eager to find out about.
46 Cross Cultural Management

(4) I am very cautious in trying new goods/services.

(5) For an important date or dinner, I would be wary of trying new foods/ restaurant.
(6) I would rather wait for others to try a new store selling goods/services than try it myself.
(7) When I see a new brand of good/service somewhat different from usual, I investigate it.
(8) Investigating new brands of goods/services is generally a waste of time.
(9) When I hear of a new store/ service provider selling the goods/services I want to purchase, I
take advantage of the first opportunity to find out more about it.
(10) I enjoy taking chances in buying unfamiliar brands of goods/services just to get some vari-
ety in my purchases.

Recreation Conscious Decision-Making Style (5 items)

(1) Shopping for goods/services is not a pleasant activity to me.
(2) Shopping for goods/services is one of the most enjoyable activities of my life.
(3) Shopping the stores for goods/services waste my time.
(4) I enjoy shopping for goods/services just for the fun of it.
(5) I make my goods/services shopping trips fast.

Price Conscious Decision-Making Style (3 items)

(1) I buy goods/services at sale prices.
(2) The lower price goods/services are usually my choice.
(3) I look carefully to find the best value for the money goods/services.

Impulse Buying Decision Making Style (5 items)

(1) I should plan my shopping for goods/services more carefully than I do.
(2) I am impulsive when purchasing goods/services.
(3) Often I make careless goods or services purchases I later wish I had not bought them.
(4) I take the time to shop carefully for best buys for goods/services.
(5) I carefully watch how much I spend on goods/services.

Confused by Overchoice Decision-Making Style (4 items)

(1) There are so many brands of goods/services to choose from that I often feel confused.
(2) Sometimes it’s hard to choose which stores to shop for goods/service provider to go to.
(3) The more I learn about goods/services, the harder it seems to choose the best.
(4) All the information I get on different goods/services confuses me.

Brand Loyal Consumer Decision-Making Style (4 items)

(1) I have favourite brands of goods/services I buy again and again.
(2) Once I find a good/service brand I like, I stick with it.
(3) I go to the same stores each time I shop for goods/ service provider each time I shop.
(4) I regularly change the brands of goods/services I buy.
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 47

The sequence of the questions were randomly arranged to avoid bias (Judd,
Smith & Kidder, 1991). Instrumental and functional equivalence for the cross-cul-
tural study was attained as both countries utilise English as first language and
possess similar levels of economic development. Items that were not reliable or
valid across both cultures were removed to ensure measurement equivalency.
Consistent with previous research on consumer decision-making styles, this study
investigates the decision-making styles of adult consumers (Fan & Xiao, 1998;
Hiu, Siew, Wang & Chang, 2000). In Australia and Singapore, an adult is legally
defined as anyone aged above 18 years (Interpol, 2002; Urbas, 2000). A screen-
ing question was included to ensure that the respondent was aged over 18 to al-
low for comparison of adult perspectives. Respondents who completed the
questionnaire, but were under 18, were deleted from the sample.
The statistics of Cronbach alpha and item-to-total correlations was under-
taken to assess the internal consistency of the instrument (Nunnally & Bernstein,
1994). Reliability tests were conducted on all 46 items and items that were below
the thresholds of 0.6 for Cronbach’s alpha and 0.3 for item-to-total correlation
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) were removed from further analyses. These reliabil-
ity tests were performed as “any summated scale should be analysed for reliability
to ensure its appropriateness before proceeding to an assessment of its validity”
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham & Black, 1998, p118). Factor Analysis is used to test the
validity of the items and to determine the dimensionality of a scale. It was used in
this study to see if the same factor structure (same makeup and number of dimen-
sions) applied across the countries studied. Factor Analysis via Principal Compo-
nent Analysis was conducted on the 46 items to examine the suitability of the
8-factor model in each country (Singapore and Australia). Items that had factor
loadings lower than 0.30 were deemed to be poor indicators of the construct and
were removed from the analysis and hypotheses testing.
Table IV.
Initial Reliability Results (Item-To-Total Correlations and Cronbach Alpha)
Singapore Goods Australia Goods
Item-to-total Factor Item-to-total Factor
correlations loadings correlations loadings
Quality 1 .57 .765 .59 .770
Quality 2 .59 .781 .54 .740
Quality 3 .48 .669 .52 .697
Quality 4 .61 .785 .72 .852
Quality 5 .24 .332 .34 .405
Quality 6 .46 .648 .61 .750
Quality 7 .23 .312 .30 .372
Quality 8 .19 .318 .23 .343
Cronbach’s Alpha .72 .77
48 Cross Cultural Management

Brand 1 .47 .632 .43 .580

Brand 2 .52 .679 .64 .780
Brand 3 .60 .763 .56 .717
Brand 4 .43 .600 .48 .640
Brand 5 .55 .711 .65 .791
Brand 6 .60 .757 .55 .705
Cronbach’s Alpha .78 .80
Innovative 1 .39 .624 .50 .691
Innovative 2 .37 .584 .45 .631
Innovative 3 .39 .637 .38 .559
Innovative 4 .29 .372 .50 .592
Innovative 5 .15 .207 .18 .224
Innovative 6 .26 .317 .33 .413
Innovative 7 .29 .531 .48 .676
Innovative 8 .28 .423 .45 .598
Innovative 9 .42 .635 .42 .613
Innovative 10 .29 .499 .35 .463
Cronbach’s Alpha .64 .73
Recreation 1 .59 .809 .72 .853
Recreation 2 .62 .804 .64 .794
Recreation 3 .39 .627 .37 .545
Recreation 4 .31 .516 .56 .734
Recreation 5 .41 .632 .56 .738
Cronbach’s Alpha .70 .79
Price 1 .28 .725 .42 .623
Price 2 .32 .670 .30 .430
Price 3 .22 .636 .35 .525
Cronbach’s Alpha .42 .55
Impulse 1 .29 .556 .44 .708
Impulse 2 .58 .829 .47 .732
Impulse 3 .43 .726 .48 .747
Impulse 4 .28 .495 .26 .449
Impulse 5 .25 .468 .32 .534
Cronbach’s Alpha .61 . .64
Confused 1 .69 .872 .57 .800
Confused 2 .39 .587 .42 .646
Confused 3 .44 .669 .47 .703
Confused 4 .67 .858 .55 .787
Cronbach’s Alpha .74 .71
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 49

Loyal 1 .50 .793 .40 .775

Loyal 2 .64 .866 .45 .801
Loyal 3 .45 .721 .32 .587
Loyal 4 .22 .406 .23 .443
Cronbach’s Alpha .66 .57
NOTE: Bold indicates items with values less than 0.30 threshold (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994)

Table V.
Reliability and Validity for Final Items
Singapore Goods Australia Goods
Item-to-total Factor Item-to-total Factor
correlations loadings correlations loadings
Quality 1 .62 .782 .67 .804
Quality 2 .64 .796 .65 .784
Quality 3 .52 .685 .57 .723
Quality 4 .63 .791 .75 .857
Quality 6 .49 .662 .59 .738
Cronbach’s Alpha .80 .84
Brand 1 .47 .632 .43 .580
Brand 2 .52 .679 .64 .780
Brand 3 .60 .763 .56 .717
Brand 4 .43 .600 .48 .640
Brand 5 .55 .711 .65 .791
Brand 6 .60 .757 .55 .705
Cronbach’s Alpha .72 .77
Innovative 1 .43 .710 .53 .601
Innovative 2 .40 .682 .45 .485
Innovative 3 .47 .726 .40 .422
Innovative 9 .35 .626 .54 .590
Cronbach’s Alpha .63 .70
Recreation 1 .59 .809 .72 .853
Recreation 2 .62 .804 .64 .794
Recreation 3 .39 .627 .37 .545
Recreation 4 .31 .516 .56 .734
Recreation 5 .41 .632 .56 .738
Cronbach’s Alpha .70 .79
Confused 1 .69 .872 .57 .800
Confused 2 .39 .587 .42 .646
Confused 3 .44 .669 .47 .703
Confused 4 .67 .858 .55 .787
Cronbach’s Alpha .74 .71
50 Cross Cultural Management

Loyal 1 .57 .829 .46 .835

Loyal 2 .63 .862 .49 .847
Loyal 3 .47 .736 .30 .523
Cronbach’s Alpha .73 .60

Method of Analysis

The demographic data were analysed to provide frequencies and measures of cen-
tral tendencies. For each respondent, an aggregate score for each decision-mak-
ing styles was calculated from the item score (items for each style are detailed in
Table III). Mean scores were then compared for each style using ANCOVA to test
the hypotheses. ANCOVA is used to compare means while adjusting for covariates
such as age, gender and income.

The initial item-to-total correlations, Cronbach alphas and factor loadings

are presented in Table IV along with the statistics for the final items in Table V.
It is evident from these tables that the removal of poor performing items for price
conscious left only one item and only two for impulse buying. This is an insuffi-
cient number of items to establish reliability and validity and, thus, these factors
were not able to be tested further using ANOVA. Reliability indicates the stability
of a measure in a given context. If a measure is not stable then (even when signifi-
cant differences are detected) one cannot be confident of the direction or the sig-
nificance of the findings shown (see Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Even if factor
loadings indicate validity, without reliability (particularly when comparing across
cultures), the findings cannot be interpreted as anything but artefact.

Results

Cultural Differences in Consumer Decision-Making Styles

The ANOVA results are presented in Table VI with four of the six hypotheses sup-
ported. Hypothesis 1 “There will be a significant difference in quality consciousness
between Australians and Singaporeans. Singaporeans are expected to be more quality
conscious”, was not supported as there were no significant differences between the
countries. Hypothesis 2, “There will be a significant difference in brand conscious-
ness between Australians and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more
brand consciousness”, was supported with a significant difference.

Hypothesis 3. “There will be a significant difference in innovativeness between

Australians and Singaporeans. Singaporeans will be more innovative”, was sup-
ported. The direction of the results supported the prediction based on economic
traditions, that is, Singaporeans were more innovation focused than Australians.

Hypothesis 4 was, “There will be no significant difference in recreation con-

sciousness between Australians and Singaporeans”. The results indicated no differ-
ence and so the hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 5, “There will be a
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 51

significant difference in price consciousness between Australians and Singaporeans.

Australians are expected to be more price conscious”, was not tested due to a lack of
reliability amongst the items. Hypothesis 6, “There will be a significant difference
in impulse buying between Australians and Singaporeans. Singaporeans are expected
to be more impulsive”, was also not tested due a lack of reliability. Hypothesis 7,
“There will be a significant difference in confused by overchoice between Australians
and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more confused by overchoice”, was
supported by the results. A significant difference was found in the hypothesised
direction.

Finally, Hypothesis 8, “There will be a significant difference in brand loyalty

between Australians and Singaporeans. Australians are expected to be more brand
loyal”, was not supported. There were no significant differences between the
countries.

These findings indicate that there were significant country differences for
the decision-making styles of brand consciousness, innovativeness and confused
by overchoice, with the magnitude of the differences the greatest for
innovativeness. There were no significant differences between consumers from
Singapore and Australia for quality consciousness, recreation consciousness and
brand loyalty decision-making styles.

Table VI.
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making styles
CSI Styles F-stat Singapore Australia Hypothesis Support for
Mean Mean hypotheses
Quality Conscious 1.35 2.19 2.26 H1 No
Brand Conscious 4.31* 3.24 3.37 H2 Yes
Innovative 8.63** 2.73 2.54 H3 Yes
Recreation Conscious 1.18 2.62 2.70 H4 Yes
Confused by Overchoice 18.43*** 2.91 3.20 H7 Yes
Brand Loyal 0.91 2.42 2.35 H8 No
*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Note: two of the eight decision-making styles could not be tested due to lack of reliability
amongst the items. These were price conscious and impulse-buying.

As seen in Table VI, Hypotheses 2 to 7 were fully supported. The support

found for Hypotheses 2 and 3 demonstrated that the economic tradition explana-
tion prevailed over an explanation based on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions. Fi-
nally, there was no support for Hypotheses 1 and 8, indicating no cultural
differences in quality conscious and brand loyalty, and Hypotheses 5 and 6 were
not able to be tested as the items were not reliable.
52 Cross Cultural Management

Discussion

The findings indicate mixed evidence for the application of Hofstede’s cultural di-
mension to Australian and Singaporean consumer decision-making styles. In par-
ticular, it appears that while a culture may be classified according to several of the
dimensions, they do not all interact consistently with each other. For instance,
Australians are high on individualism, and one would then expect they would be
less concerned with making mistakes in front of others and, thus, be more willing
to take a risk compared to Singaporeans who are a more collectivist concerned
and concerned with the opinions of the community.

However, Australians scored higher on uncertainty avoidance which means

they are risk averse, thus, conflicting with their score on the individualism dimen-
sion. It would be interesting to conduct a study that investigates the relative in-
fluence and interplay of each dimension on the consumer decision-making styles
to identify dimensions that may take precedence over others.

People from Singapore, with a culture dominated by an Eastern cultural her-

itage (Hofstede, 2001), were expected to be more quality conscious and innova-
tive. While they were found to be more innovative, the results found no
differences in quality conscious and the mean score (2.19) demonstrated that the
consumers from Singapore made low quality conscious decisions.

In contrast, Australians, with a culture dominated by Western cultural heri-

tage, were expected to be more brand conscious, confused by overchoice and
more brand loyal. In support of expectations, Australians were more brand con-
scious and confused by overchoice, although not extremely so (mean of 3.24).
However, the findings indicated that there were no significant differences in
brand loyalty levels.

There were no cultural differences in quality consciousness, recreation con-

sciousness and brand loyalty decision-making styles. This means that the results
show both consistency and conflict with previous research. In particular, the par-
ticipants from Singapore had unexpectedly low levels of quality consciousness
compared to Chinese consumers who had moderately high levels (Fan & Xiao,
1998). One explanation for this difference may be the stage of economic develop-
ment in each country and the standard of quality of available goods. In China, the
quality of goods is not consistent (Fan & Xiao, 1998), thus, quality would be an
important purchase criteria. However, in Singapore, which is a more developed
country, quality standards are relatively high and comparable to Australia; and so
product quality may be a basic assumption of both Australian and Singaporean
consumers and not an essential part of the decision-making process.

Brand conscious decision-making was higher for Australian consumers than

for Singaporean consumers, which contrasts with Ahuvia and Wong’s (1998)
proposition that goods serve as status symbols for Eastern consumers and provides
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 53

support for Bao, Zhou & Su (2003). It appears that Australian consumers buy
symbolic goods that are expensive and reputable to convey a brand personality
that satisfies their individual self-concepts. Thus, the research suggests that indi-
vidualism dimension may have more impact on decision-making styles than the
power distance dimension. Brands may be used to express individualism rather
than to reflect a level of hierarchy in society.

Innovative shopping behaviour was higher in the sample from Singapore

than the sample from Australia. The results correspond with the argument that
Singaporeans would be more innovative seeking due to a lower level of uncer-
tainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2001; Lowe & Corkindale, 1998; Spears, Lin &
Mowen, 2001). The results indicate that Singaporean consumers appear to be
more concerned with the future than the past in terms of time orientation (Spears,
Lin & Mowen, 2001). Singaporean economic culture is more based on technology
and information libraries than the Australian economic culture, which historically
has been based more around natural resources. Hence, the economic traditions of
Singapore with their Innovation Policy (Ebner, 2004) may account for the con-
sumer decision-making style coupled with their high tolerance for ambiguity (Sin-
gapore scored 8 for the uncertainty avoidance dimension). Thus, this
decision-making style seems to be influence by the cultural dimension of uncer-
tainty avoidance and also government economic policy.

As expected, there was no difference in recreation conscious decision-mak-

ing for both cultures, which contributes towards the mixed evidence in the litera-
ture for this style. The results are consistent with the view that shopping is
perceived as a task rather than leisure, and consumers attribute their disinterest to
shopping as being a waste of time (Ackerman & Tellis, 2001; Doran, 2002). Alter-
natively, the results contrast with literature that proposed American consumers
are less receptive towards leisure shopping than Eastern consumers (Ackerman &
Tellis, 2001; Doran, 2002).

As expected, Australians were more confused by overchoice. This is consis-

tent with the literature that proposes Eastern and Western consumers possess dif-
ferent cognitive and decision-making processes, and Eastern consumers are better
able to recognise and process information integratively (Cowley, 2002; Doran,
2002). These findings possibly explain the lower rating of consumer
innovativeness of Australian consumers as compared to Singaporean consumers.
Accordingly, ‘innovation overload’ could occur because increased information and
options impedes the diffusion of future innovations. Thus, the limited choice of
mass media in Singapore (Tai & Tam, 1996) could reduce the amount of informa-
tion that consumers face.

Finally, there were no differences in brand loyalty, which was an unexpected

finding. This is inconsistent with the literature, which indicates that cultures with
high aversion to uncertainty (such as Australians) prefer familiarity and are risk
54 Cross Cultural Management

adverse (Yau, 1988). A possible explanation could be due to Singaporeans being

less inclined to adhere to group norms and are more individualistic than assumed.
This perspective is consistent with the proposition that innovativeness requires in-
dividuals to initiate behaviours different from group norms (Midgley & Dowling,
1978) and that individualism increases with the economic development
(Hofstede, 2001).

The objective of this research was to compare the decision-making styles of

Singaporeans and Australians as two important trading partners in the Asia-Pa-
cific region with different cultural heritages. The results demonstrate that most of
the expected relationships were present in the data. Further research is required
on how and why some cultural dimensions are prevalent in consumer behaviour
and others are not.

Limitations and Directions for Further Research

This study contributes to practical and theoretical research on cross-cultural dif-

ferences in consumer decision-making styles by testing and providing empirical
support regarding consumer marketing choices in Australia and Singapore. None-
theless, as with all research, the current study has a number of limitations which
need to be recognised. These limitations may also prove valuable as outlets for fu-
ture research.

Firstly, the research participants were selected randomly to allow for objec-
tive evaluation of the results (Malhotra, Hall, Shaw & Oppenheim, 2004). Alter-
native sampling techniques for future studies may look at stratified or purposive
sampling depending on the nature of the study and whether it is aimed at gener-
alisation. For instance, stratification could be used to differentiate between the
ethnic groups of Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians in Singapore. However,
for the purpose of this study, random selection was deemed appropriate. Future
research could use stratified sampling to where the researcher ensures that seg-
ments of interest in the identified population are represented.

Secondly, the study was cross-sectional as it was done at one point in time.
This is a limitation and also an avenue for future research as future studies may
examine a longitudinal study.

Thirdly, as the aim of this study was to examine one case study in-depth, the
results are not intended to be generalisable. To gain a better and more general
overview of this research area, future studies may expand the sample to include
other nations with similar economic conditions such as Japan, Taiwan and Hong
Kong.

Fourthly, were there variables which were not studied? Future research
could examine specific demographic variables on each decision-making style such
as gender, age and income. Integrating different variables could provide more re-
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 55

liable information and a more in-depth analysis of the different demographic seg-
ments of future cross-cultural studies. This research was concerned primarily with
inter-country differences and, thus, the research focused solely on the primary re-
search question. However, future studies may incorporate these variables to ex-
amine different aspects of demographic cross-cultural differences in consumer
decision-making styles.

Fifthly, there were two factors that did not have significant differences. It
would be useful to conduct a future study that contained both quantitative and
qualitative studies to report on differences and to explain why these occur/did not
occur. Including both methods would also improve the validity and reliability of
the research (Ulijn, 2000).

Lastly, there is potential to investigate the influence of different product type

on decision-making styles for different countries. Previous CSI research has a fo-
cus on general shopping orientation and a different approach would further en-
hance both theoretic and practitioners’ understanding of shopping behaviour in
different cultures.

Managerial Implications

In this paper, we argued that cross-cultural differences in consumer decision-mak-

ing styles would extend to the purchase of goods. We integrated the concept of
consumer decision-making style with Hofstede’s typology of culture and empiri-
cally tested predictions from the framework on a sample of consumers from Aus-
tralia and Singapore.

There are a number of managerial implications flowing from the research.

First, the theoretical analysis provides insight on how cultural background affects
consumer decision-making styles. Second, the research indicates that managers
and practitioners need to consider cultural background in recruiting, selecting and
training workers dealing with consumers of goods. Similarly, the findings provide
insight on how organisations should position themselves with respect to their mar-
kets in different cultural settings. As noted by Hoppe (2004, p74), the study of
cultural values is essential to effective globalisation and management strategy as
it enables the improvement of the quality of products and services.

Third, it can be inferred from the findings that organisations need to modify
their messages and communications in different cultures to accord with differ-
ences in consumer decision-making styles. This is particularly relevant for
multi-national corporations (MNCs), which manage across national boundaries.

Fourth, organisations need to be careful about creating generalisations and

stereotyping consumer behaviours on the basis of Hofstede’s typology. While Sin-
gapore and Australia reflected traditional Eastern and Western typologies
(Hofstede, 2001), these dimensions did not always have the expected results in
56 Cross Cultural Management

predicted behaviour. Finally, the findings have Implications for performance

management in that they suggest that criteria for goods service and quality need
to be tailored to the cultural setting.

In conclusion, we have shown that consumer decision-making styles for

goods differs according to consumers’ cultural orientation and that consumer be-
haviour can be predicted from an understanding of the cultural personality of con-
sumers. Thus, products and services can be better designed to meet consumer
needs, consumer behaviour can be better predicted decreasing uncertainty for or-
ganisations, managers can hold more confidence in organisational strategies, and
greater insight into consumer behaviour can facilitate economic stability.

Endnote

1. This paper is part of a study conducted for the first author’s honours thesis
(Bachelor of Business Management – Honours) and supervised by the second au-
thor.
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 57

References

Abe, S., Bagozzi, R. P. & Sadarangani, P. (1996). An investigation of construct va-

lidity and generalizability of the self-concept: Self-consciousness in Japan and the
United States. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8 (3/4): pp.97-123.

Agrawal, M. (1995). Review of a 40 year debate in international advertising. In-

ternational Marketing Review, 12 (1): pp.26-48.

Ackerman, D. T. & Tellis, G. (2001). Can culture affect prices? A cross-cultural

study of shopping and retail prices. Journal of Retailing, 77 (1): pp.57–82.

Ahuvia, A. C. & Wong, N. Y. (1998). Personal taste and family face: Luxury con-
sumption in Confucian and Western societies. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (5):
pp.423-441.

Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail

surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14: pp.396-402.

Bao, Y., Zhou, K. Z. & Su. C. (2003). Face consciousness and risk aversion: Do
they affect consumer decision-making? Psychology and Marketing, 20 (8):
pp.733-755.

Bellenger, D. N. & Korgaonkar, P. R. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper.

Journal of Retailing, 56 (3): pp.77-91.

Bennett, P. D. & Kassarjian, H. H. (1972). Foundations of marketing series: Con-

sumer behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Berg, B. L. (1998) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bing, J. W. (2004). Hofstede’s consequences: The impact of his work on consult-

ing and business practices. Academy of Management Executive, 18 (1): pp.80-87.

Burns, D. J. & Brady, J. (1992). A cross-cultural comparison for the need for
uniqueness in Malaysia and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 132
(4): pp.487-496.

Calder, B. & Burnkrant, R. (1977). Interpersonal influence on consumer behav-

iour: An attribution theory approach. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (1):
pp.197-207.

Cowley, E. (2002). East – West consumer confidence and accuracy in memory for
product information. Journal of Business Research, 55: pp.915-921.

Darden, W. R. & Ashton, D. (1974). Psychographics profiles of patronage prefer-

ence groups. Journal of Retailing, 50 (4): 99-112.
58 Cross Cultural Management

Darden, W. R. & Reynolds, F. D. (1971). Shopping orientations and product usage

roles. Journal of Market Research, 8: pp.505-508.

de Mooij, M. (2000). The future is predictable for international marketers: Con-

verging incomes lead to diverging consumer behaviour. International Marketing
Review, 17 (2): pp.103-113.

de Mooij, M. & Hofstede, G. (2002). Convergence and divergence in consumer be-

haviour: Implications for international retailing. Journal of Retailing, 78:
pp.61-69.

Doran, K. B. (2002). Lessons learnt in cross-cultural research of Chinese and

North American consumers. Journal of Business Research, 55 (10): pp.823-829.

East, I. & Lloyd, P. J. (2001). Closer economic relations with East Asia? Economic
Record, 77 (238): pp.228-241.

Ebner, A. (2004). Innovation policies and local competitiveness. Lessons from Sin-
gapore. ASIALICS International Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from
www.nstda.or.th/nstc/Seminar/ paper/pdf/paper_Alexander%20Ebner.pdf.

Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception.

Psychiatry, 32 (1): pp.88-106.

Fan, J. X. & Xiao, J. J. (1998). Consumer decision-making styles of young Chinese.

The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32 (2): pp.275-294.

Furrer, O., Liu, B. S. C. & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationship between cul-
ture and service quality perceptions – Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation
and resource allocation. Journal of Service Research, 2 (4): pp.355-371.

Gong, W. (2003). Chinese consumer behaviour: A cultural framework and impli-

cations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3 (1/2): pp.373-380.

Ghosh, B. C. & Lim, K. S. (1991). Structures and processes of company quality

control circles (QCCs): An explanatory study of Japan, the USA and Singapore.
Management Decision, 29 (7): pp.45-53.

Hafstrom, J. J., Chae, J. S. & Chung, Y. S. (1992). Consumer decision-making

styles: comparison between United States and Korean young consumers. The Jour-
nal of Consumer Affairs, 26 (1): pp.146-158.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black , W. C. (1998). Multivariate

data analysis. Sydney: Prentice Hall.

Hiu, A. S. Y., Siu, N. Y. M., Wang, C. C. L. & Chang, L. M. K. (2001). An investiga-

tion of decision-making styles of consumers in China. The Journal of Consumer Af-
fairs, 35 (2): pp.326-346.
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 59

Ho, D.Y. F. (1976). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81 (4):
pp.867-884.

Hoppe, M. H. (2004). Introduction: Geert Hofstede’s culture’s consequences: In-

ternational differences in work-related values. Academy of Management Executive,
18 (1): pp.73-74.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values behaviours, institu-

tions and organisations across nations. London: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-re-

lated value. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Hse, T. W., Murphy, J. & Purchase, S. (2001). Australian and Taiwanese adver-
tiser’s perceptions of Internet marketing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 9 (1):
pp.33-45.

Interpol, (2002). Ages for legal purposes. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from
http://www.interpol.int/public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLawsold/csa Sin-
gapore.asp.

Judd, C.M., Smith, E. R. & Kidder, L. H. (1991). Research methods in social rela-
tions. Florida: Holt Rinehart and Winston.

Kacen, J. J. & Lee. J . A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive

buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12 (2): pp.163-176.

Kim, H. S. & Droplet, A. (2003). Choice and self-expression: A cultural analysis of

variety seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (2): pp.373-382.

Lastovicka, J. L. (1982). On the validation of lifestyle traits: A review and illustra-

tion. Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (February): pp.126-138.

Lehmann, D. R. & Winer, R. S. (1997). Product management. (2 ed.). Sydney:

Irwin.

Li, F., Zhou, N., Nicholls, J. A. F., Zhuang, G. & Kranendonk, C. (2004). Interlin-
ear or inscription? A comparative study of Chinese and American mall shoppers’
behaviour. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21 (1): pp.51-61.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M. & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions

and consumer shopping behaviour: A field study. Journal of Marketing Research,
30: pp.234-245.

Lowe, A. C. T. & Corkindale, D. R. (1998). Differences in “cultural values” and

their effects on responses to marketing stimuli: A cross-cultural study between
Australians and Chinese from the People’s Republic of China. European Journal of
Marketing, 32 (9/10): pp.843-867.
60 Cross Cultural Management

Lysonski, S., Durvasula, S. & Zotos, Y. (1996). Consumer decision-making styles:

A multi country investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (12): pp.10-21.

Malhotra, N. K, Agarwal, J. & Peterson, M. (1996). Methodological issues in

cross-cultural research. A state-of-the-art review. International Marketing Review,
13 (5): pp.7-43.

Malhotra, N. K., Hall, J., Shaw, M. & Oppenheim, P.P. (2004). Essentials of mar-
keting research: An applied orientation. Prentice Hall: Frenchs Forest, NSW.

Manrai, L. A., Lascu, D. N., Manrai, A. K. & Babb, H. W. (2001). A cross-cultural

comparison of style in Eastern Europe emerging markets. International Marketing
Review, 18 (3): pp.270-285.

Markus, H. & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cogni-
tion, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98 (2): pp.224-253.

McAlister, L. & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behaviour: An interdisciplin-

ary review. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (3): pp.311-322.

Midgley, D. F. & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Innovativeness: The concept and its mea-
surement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (4): pp.229-242.

Mitchell, V. W. & Bates, L. (1998). UK consumer decision-making styles. Journal

of Marketing Management, 14 (1/3): pp.199-225.

Nakata, C. & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new product develop-
ment: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing, 60 (1): pp.61-72.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think
differently…and why. New York: The Free Press.

Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3 ed.). Sydney:

McGraw Hill.

Palumbo, P. & Herbig, P. (2000). The multicultural context of brand loyalty. Euro-
pean Journal of Innovation Management, 3 (3): pp.116-124.

Raju, P. S. (1980). Optimum stimulation level: Its relationship to personality, de-

mographics, and exploratory behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3):
pp.272-282.

Rook, D. W. & Hoch, S. J. (1985). Consuming impulses. In Holbrook, M. B. &

Hirschman, (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 12, (pp.23-27). E. C.
Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Shane, S. (2002). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of

Business Venturing, 8 (1): pp.59-73.
Volume 12 Number 3 2005 61

Shim, S. & Gehrt, K. C. (1996). Hispanic and native American adolescents: An ex-
ploratory study of their approach to shopping. Journal of Retailing, 72 (3):
pp.307-324.

Sondergaard, M. (1994). Research note: Hofstede’s consequences: A study of re-

views, citations and replications. Organisation Studies, 15 (3): pp.447-456.

Spears, N., Lin, X. & Mowen, J. C. (2001). Time orientation in the United States,
China and Mexico: Measurement and insights for promotional strategy. Journal of
International Consumer Marketing, 13 (1): pp.57-75.

Sproles, G. B. & Kendall, E. L. (1986). A methodology for profiling consumers’ de-

cision-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20 (2): pp.267-279.

Steenkamp, J. E. M., Hofstede, F. & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-cultural investiga-

tion into the individualism and national cultural antecedents of consumer
innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63: pp.55-69.

Tung, R. L. (1995). International organisational behaviour. In F. Luthans (Ed.),

Virtual OB, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tai, S. H. C. & Tam, L. M. (1996). A comparative study of Chinese consumers in

Asian markets – A lifestyle analysis. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
9 (1): pp.25-42.

Urbas, G. (2000). The age of criminal responsibility. Trends & Issues in Crime and
Criminal Justice, 181. Retrieved July 20, 2004, from http://www.aic.gov.au/pub-
lications/tandi/tandi181.html.

Ulijn, J. (2000). Innovation and international business communication: Can Euro-

pean research help increase the validity and reliability for our business and teach-
ing practice? The Journal of Business Communication, 37 (2): pp.173-187.

Verhage, B. J., Yavas, U., Green, R.T. & Borak, E. (1990). The perceived
risk-brand loyalty relationship: An international perspective. Journal of Global
Marketing, 3 (3): pp.7-22.

Walsh, G. W., Mitchell, V. W. & Thaurau, T. H. (2001). German consumer deci-

sion-making styles. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35 (1): pp.73-96.

Wells, W. D. (1974). Lifestyles and psychographics. Chicago: American Marketing

Association.

Westbrook, R. A. & Black, W. C. (1985). A motivation-based shopping typology.

Journal of Retailing, 61 (1): pp.78-101.

Yau, O. H. M. (1988). Chinese cultural values: Their dimensions and marketing

implications. European Journal of Marketing, 22 (5): pp.44-57.
62 Cross Cultural Management

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Zhou, Z. & Nakamoto, K. (2001). Price perceptions: A cross-national study be-
tween American and Chinese young consumers. Advances in Consumer Research,
28 (1): pp.161-168.