Cultural openness and consumer ethnocentrism: an empirical analysis of Turkish consumers

Abstract

Purpose

To examine the antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism, specifically with respect to Turkish consumers' attitudes to products originating in Europe.

Design/methodology/approach

Antecedents identified from the literature are allocated to one of three main constructs: xenophobia, negative attitudes towards foreigners (not the same phenomenon, it is argued) and conservatism. A web‐based questionnaire is developed, tested and successfully administered to a national sample of 540 individuals with e‐mail accounts. Consumer ethnocentrism is measured by the well‐tested CETSCALE. Results are analyzed by structural equation modelling, a path diagram generated and six hypotheses tested.

Findings

All but one of the hypotheses were accepted. Xenophobia is found to have the greatest influence consumer ethnocentrism among Turkish consumers, and is also a leading factor in the interactions among the antecedents. Conservatism is the second‐most influential element of the model.

Research limitations/implications

Other antecedents might have been identified and added to the conceptual framework. The timeframe of data collection was very specific. The large sample size and its apparent representativeness encourage confident generalisation of the findings, though the concept of “Europe” could usefully be refined to specific countries in future studies.

Practical implications

International marketers now have clear evidence that xenophobia and conservatism are important antecedents of consumer ethnocentrism, and should plan their intelligence gathering and campaign strategy accordingly.

Originality/value

This study both supports and adds to the existing literature. The findings clearly impinge on the somewhat separate literature of country‐of‐origin effects and branding.

Citation

Hakan Altintaş, M. and Tokol, T. (2007), "Cultural openness and consumer ethnocentrism: an empirical analysis of Turkish consumers", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 308-325. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500710754565