Country of origin, ethnocentrism and bicultural consumers: the case of Mexican Americans

Abstract

Purpose

The paper's aim is to explore how bicultural consumers differ from monocultural consumers, and among themselves, in terms of country‐of‐origin effect and ethnocentrism.

Design/methodology/approach

A multidisciplinary literature review pointed to a set of hypotheses regarding the differences between biculturals (Mexican Americans) and monoculturals (Mexicans and Americans), and between bicultural groups (integrating biculturals versus alternating biculturals). Two pilot tests and two experiments were conducted to test the hypotheses.

Findings

Bicultural Mexican Americans are less ethnocentric than either American or Mexican monoculturals; exhibit more favorable quality evaluation and purchase intention toward American brands than Mexican monoculturals; and exhibit more favorable quality evaluation and purchase intention toward Mexican brands than American monoculturals. Although ethnocentrism does not significantly demarcate alternating biculturals from their integrating counterparts, alternators are more likely than integrators to provide a favorable evaluation of foreign brands and entertain the intention to purchase them.

Research limitations/implications

As a starting‐point for understanding the bicultural consumer, this study is subject to exploratory research limitations.

Originality/value

The country‐of‐origin literature implicitly assumes that consumers identify with either the country where the product is originated or the country where it is sold. This assumption, however, might not hold for ethnic groups who identify with both countries. Such bicultural consumers might identify with the product's origin country as well as target country and, therefore, be less amenable to the country‐of‐origin hypothesis. We address this important research gap.

Citation

Zolfagharian, M.A. and Sun, Q. (2010), "Country of origin, ethnocentrism and bicultural consumers: the case of Mexican Americans", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 345-357. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011052387