Drivers of Brand Commitment:

A Cross-National Investigation
Andreas B. Eisingerich and Gaia Rubera

ABSTRACT
Firms increasingly employ global brand management strategies for the effective coordination of their global activities.
Effective coordination requires adapting global brand management strategies to cultural nuances. This study examines
the influence of culture on the impact of four key brand management elements (i.e., brand innovativeness, brand customer orientation, brand self-relevance, and social responsibility) on customer commitment to a brand. Using responses
from 167 U.K. and 230 Chinese consumers, the authors empirically demonstrate that brand innovativeness and brand
self-relevance have a greater effect on brand commitment in cultures that are individualist, short-term oriented, and low
on power distance (i.e., the United Kingdom), while brand customer orientation and social responsibility have a greater
impact on brand commitment in cultures that are collectivist, long-term oriented, and high on power distance (i.e.,
China). Furthermore, the findings reveal that in collectivist, long-term-oriented, and high-power-distance cultures, the
four brand management activities equally contribute to brand commitment. The research informs global brand managers wanting to optimize brand positioning and strengthen customers brand commitment across cultures.
Keywords: brand commitment, global brand management, brand innovativeness, customer orientation, social
responsibility

rands play a critical role in developing customer

relationships and determining firm performance
(Rao, Agarwal, and Dahlhoff 2004; Schau,
Muiz, and Arnould 2009; Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009). Scholars contend that global brands are
attractive for firms because they enhance economies of
scale and scope in manufacturing and research-anddevelopment activities (zsomer and Altaras 2008;
Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008b). Previous
research has also suggested that global brands not only
take advantage of cost economies but also realize value
from being global (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004;

Andreas B. Eisingerich is Assistant Professor of Marketing,

Imperial College Business School, Imperial College London
(e-mail: [email protected]).
Gaia Rubera is Assistant Professor of Marketing, The Eli
Broad College of Business, Michigan State University (e-mail:
[email protected]).

64 Journal of International Marketing

Steenkamp, Batra, and Alden 2003). However, although

global brands can be attractive from a cost perspective,
their relevance to consumers is not always clear.
Some scholars argue that consumers might have negative reactions toward a global brand that does not take
into account local specificities (Cayla and Arnould
2008). When brands reflect differences in local culture,
they are more likely to develop strong customer relationships across a range of geographic regions (Batra et
al. 2000; Craig and Douglas 2000; Eckhardt 2005).
Central to this argument is the notion that through an
appreciation of cultural differences in the global econ-

Journal of International Marketing

2010, American Marketing Association
Vol. 18, No. 2, 2010, pp. 6479
ISSN 1069-0031X (print) 1547-7215 (electronic)

omy, a higher degree of localization is possible, which

leads to more profitable customer relationships over
time (Cayla and Arnould 2008; Douglas and Craig
1997; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008a).
Prior research has noted that the management of global
brands is not without risks (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor
2004; Schuiling and Kapferer 2004). To identify meaningful and more effective brand positioning strategies,
brand managers need to consider cultural differences in
global markets (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 1999; Cayla
and Arnould 2008; Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004;
Hsieh 2002). We examine the effectiveness of brand
innovativeness, customer orientation, self-relevance,
and social responsibility in global markets given their
importance in brand management and their ability to
influence consumer commitment toward a brand. As
such, in this work, we attempt to make three specific
contributions to the international marketing literature
in relation to global brand management.
First, we advance current understanding of brand management and customerbrand relationships by integrating the diverse literature on international marketing,
brand management, and consumer behavior to understand the connection between global brand management
decisions and customer brand commitment more effectively. This is important because it provides a more
holistic framework for understanding challenges associated with effective global brand management strategies
(Cayla and Arnould 2008; Fournier 1998; Park,
Jaworski, and MacInnis 1986).
Second, we examine how cultural dimensions, such as
individualism, long-term orientation, and power distance (Hofstede 1980, 2001), influence the effectiveness
of brands innovativeness, customer orientation, selfrelevance, and socially responsible behavior in building
deeper customerbrand relationships. This is critical
because global brand managers must understand how
cultural nuances influence individual branding elements
so that they can emphasize brand characteristics effectively in different countries.
Third, we provide managerial recommendations related
to effective brand positioning across different cultural
contexts. Prior research has highlighted the increasing
managerial focus on maximizing brands value through
deeper customerbrand relationships worldwide (Aaker
and Joachimsthaler 1999; Hsieh 2002; Schau, Muiz,
and Arnould 2009). We show that the four main ways

the literature identifies as being able to improve the

customerbrand relationship are not universal: Some
brand traits work in some specific cultural contexts;
others work in different cultural contexts.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Brand Management in a Global World:
Connecting Brands and Customers
Brand management is a complex set of activities that
involve managing relationships with customers and
other stakeholders, while accounting for a firms own
past actions and reputation and competitors actions, in
an effort to build a strong image that wins consumers
commitment to a product or a line of products (Shocker,
Srivastava, and Ruekert 1994). Keller (1993) argues
that companies use brands to establish deep relationships with their customers. More of note is the argument
that it is through brand management decisions related to
brand elements that firms relate to consumers. Two
theoretical perspectives are relevant to understand how
managers can influence consumers perceptions of their
brands to increase brand commitment.
First, the principle of selfbrand connections has gained
wide acceptance in the literature (Chaplin and John
2005; Kleine, Kleine, and Allen 1995). Prior research
has demonstrated that people choose brands that are
congruent with their self-concepts (Chaplin and John
2005; Muiz and OGuinn 2001; Schau, Muiz, and
Arnould 2009; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988). For
example, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 76) even go so
far as to suggest brandself connections as the basis for
meaningful relationships that marketers are increasingly seeking to build with their customers. The
process of selfbrand connections is based on peoples
comparison of their own defining characteristics, such
as values and preferences, with characteristics that
define a brand (Chaplin and John 2005; Escalas and
Bettman 2005; Fournier 1998; Muiz and OGuinn
2001). For example, consumers who define themselves
as being innovative are likely to connect with brands
that they view as being focused on innovation.
Second, exchange theory argues that people are more
likely to reciprocate when an exchange partner is perceived as having made equivalent contributions to the
relationship (Bagozzi 1975; Deutsch 1985). The notion
of restricted exchange draws attention to a brands
capability to respond to the concerns of its customers as

Drivers of Brand Commitment 65

individual people (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Sen and

Bhattacharya 2001). For example, if the brand is viewed
as being focused on customer needs, individual customers will view the brand as being more involved and
thus will reciprocate in kind. Furthermore, the notion of
general exchange suggests that people also value a
brands involvement in socially beneficial activities, thus
pointing attention to a brands socially responsible
activities (Klein and Dawar 2004; Sen and Bhattacharya
2001). Therefore, an examination of customerbrand
relationships needs to consider variables relevant to generalized exchange and dyadic transactions.
Drawing from these two theoretical foundations, we
develop a general framework that identifies four
brand management elements that serve as antecedents to
brand commitment: brand innovativeness and brand
self-relevance (which refer to the perceived image of a
brand that consumers use to establish self-connections)
and customer orientation and social responsibility
(which refer to the way the consumers perceive the
restricted and general exchange with the brand). In
addition to these brand management elements, we
account for the influence of national culture, a factor
that has substantive influence in brand activities (Cayla
and Arnould 2008; Eckhardt and Houston 2002;
Guzman and Paswan 2009).

The Role of National Culture

National culture refers to the homogeneity of characteristics that distinguish human groups in terms of norms,
values, and institutions. We adopt Hofstedes (2001)
framework for two main reasons. First, from a theoretical point of view, this framework is particularly relevant
for this study given Hofstedes focus on underlying values that drive attitudes and attitudinal and behavioral
aspects that underlie consumer decisions to remain committed to a brand. Second, the use of Hofstedes framework is consistent with prior brand research exploring
national culture influences (Hsieh 2002).
Hofstede (2001) specifies five national culture dimensions: individualism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and long-term orientation. Research
consistent with Hofstedes approach employs culture at
the nation-state level, thereby linking national culture to
country. Although Hofstede denotes five dimensions of
culture that can provide insights into each countrys values and norms, to maintain parsimony in the theoretical
explication of the relationships under study (Griffith,
Hu, and Ryans 2000), we test the moderating effect of

66 Journal of International Marketing

only those dimensions that are theoretically linked to the

four antecedents of brand commitment presented here or
that have received previous empirical support. Therefore,
this study does not include Hofstedes dimensions of
masculinity (i.e., separation of emotional and social roles
of gender within a society) and uncertainty avoidance
(i.e., a persons attitude toward risk).

HYPOTHESES
Brand Innovativeness and Customer
Commitment Across Cultural Dimensions
We define brand innovativeness as the extent to which
consumers perceive brands as being able to provide new
and useful solutions to their needs (Schumpeter 1934).
Prior work has indicated that consumers interpret the
introduction of new products as a signal that the product offers additional advantages over existing alternatives (Mukherjee and Hoyer 2001). To the extent that
customers are likely to consider the interests of brands
that focus on providing new, relevant solutions to customer needs in line with their own, customers will be
more likely to relate to them in a positive manner (Bell
and Eisingerich 2007; Eisingerich and Bell 2008; Schau,
Muiz, and Arnould 2009; Shah et al. 2006). As such,
the greater the ability of a brand to address a consumers
wants and needs on a continuous basis, the greater is the
consumers commitment to the brand (Park, Jaworski,
and MacInnis 1986; Reichheld and Sasser 1990).
However, cultures have different attitudes toward innovativeness (Steenkamp, Ter Hofstede, and Wedel 1999),
thus implying that the effect of a brands innovativeness
on a consumers commitment may vary across cultures.
An extensive body of previous studies has argued and
empirically demonstrated that innovativeness is positively regarded in individualist cultures, more so than in
collectivist societies (Dwyer, Mesak, and Hsu 2005;
Steenkamp, Hofstede, and Wedel 1999). The logic
underlying this is that in individualist societies, people
are expected to perform and cope on their own without
relying too much on others (Hofstede 1980). In contrast, people in collectivist societies have larger support
networks on which to rely for help. This suggests that
individualist cultures should value brand innovativeness, or the provision of novel and useful ways of
coping with daily life, more than collectivist societies.
As a result, innovative brands should generate greater
commitment in individualist than collectivist cultures.
Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

H1a: The positive influence of brands innovativeness on customer commitment is stronger in

individualist than collectivist cultures.
Long-term orientation refers to the extent to which a
society exhibits a pragmatic, future-oriented perspective
rather than a conventional historic or short-term perspective (Hofstede 1980). Because long-term-oriented
cultures value perseverance, thrift, and adaptations of
traditions to new circumstances, people are cautious
and do not readily accept or adapt to novel ideas and
sudden changes (Dwyer, Mesak, and Hsu 2005). Innovation implies the introduction of new processes
or products. To the extent that people tend to be more
cautious in long-term-oriented cultures, a brands innovativeness will be more positively valued in short-termoriented than long-term-oriented cultures. Thus, we
predict the following:
H1b: The positive influence of brands innovativeness on customer commitment is stronger in
short-term-oriented than long-term-oriented
cultures.
In addition, we argue that a brands innovativeness has
a greater effect on commitment in cultures that are low
on power distance than in those that are high on power
distance. Specifically, we argue that people from highpower-distance cultures tend to accept and appreciate
the status quo and thus do not value innovativeness to
the same degree as people from low-power-distance cultures. This is consistent with the existing body of literature, which demonstrates that people from high-powerdistance cultures are reluctant to accept or adopt
innovations (Van den Bulte and Stremersch 2004;
Yeniyurt and Townsend 2003). When consumers do not
readily accept or appreciate new products, they will be
less committed to a brand on the basis of its innovativeness. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following:
H1c: The positive influence of brands innovativeness on customer commitment is stronger in
cultures that are low on power distance than
in those that are high on power distance.

Customer Orientation and Commitment

Across Cultural Dimensions
Customer orientation refers to the extent to which an
organization and the individuals in it focus their efforts
on understanding and satisfying customers (Kohli and

Jaworski 1990). A brands focus on meeting customer

needs is likely to affect its relevance to customers positively and strengthen customerbrand relationships.
Bagozzis (1975) work on social exchange indicates that
people reciprocate more readily when they perceive an
exchange partner as exerting effort on their behalf. Consumers evaluate exchange partners, including firms and
brands, according to the level of interpersonal treatment
received (Eisingerich, Rubera, and Seifert 2009; Heskett,
Sasser, and Schlesinger 1997; Jaworski and Kohli
1993; Parasuraman, Berry, and Zeithaml 1991; Park and
MacInnis 2006). Customer orientation communicates to
consumers the efforts of a brand and its emphasis on
treating customers with empathy and respect. In turn,
customers are likely to reciprocate and stay with a brand
they perceive as being attentive to their needs (Eisingerich
and Kretschmer 2008; Maxham and Netemeyer 2003;
Shah et al. 2006; Tuli, Kohli, and Bharadwaj 2007).
Applied to the global context, researchers indicate
that culture plays a critical role in influencing the extent
to which people trust an exchange partner and are
willing to reciprocate (Griffith, Hu, and Ryans 2000).
Therefore, the effects of customer orientation may
vary across countries with different cultures. Because
people in collectivist cultures tend to be more trusting
(Griffith, Myers, and Harvey 2006), we argue that
consumers in these cultures will value customer orientation more than consumers in individualist cultures. Furthermore, in collectivist societies, after a trust relationship is established, exchange members tend to develop a
stronger commitment than in individualist societies
(Griffith, Hu, and Ryans 2000). Thus, we hypothesize
the following:
H2a: The positive influence of brands customer
orientation on customer commitment is
stronger in collectivist than individualist
cultures.
Long-term-oriented cultures value thrift and perseverance (Hofstede 1980). Thus, consumers with a longterm orientation should perceive the continuous efforts
that a brand demonstrates in being responsive to customer needs as value creation, as customer responsiveness signals a brands commitment to building strong
and lasting relationships (Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis
1986). Griffith, Hu, and Ryans (2000) indicate that
trust generates greater commitment in cultures that are
high (rather than low) on power distance. Thus, firms
that show they care about their customers are likely to
benefit from greater brand commitment in countries

Drivers of Brand Commitment 67

high on power distance. In contrast, people in cultures

that are low on power distance may simply expect customer orientation on the basis of equality. As Hofstede
(1980) notes, people in cultures low on power distance
do not accept power being distributed unequally and are
more likely to assume that organizations and businesses
are customer oriented. On the basis of these arguments,
we hypothesize the following:
H2b: The positive influence of brands customer
orientation on customer commitment is
stronger in cultures high on power distance
than in those low on power distance.
H2c: The positive influence of brands customer
orientation on customer commitment is
stronger in long-term-oriented than shortterm-oriented cultures.

Brand Self-Relevance and Customer

Commitment Across Cultural Dimensions
Prior work has indicated the possibility of connections
between brands and consumers self-concept (Chaplin
and John 2005; Eckhardt and Houston 2002; Escalas
and Bettman 2005). Self-concept refers to a set of selfschemas or knowledge structures about the self that help
people represent, and make sense of, themselves in their
environment (Aron, Aron, and Smollan 1992). Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 76) describe the linkages
between consumers self and organizations as the primary psychological substrate for the kind of deep, committed, and meaningful relationships that marketers are
increasingly seeking to build with their consumers.
Indeed, previous research has found that consumers
willingness to include brands in their self-concept positively influences their brand-related attitudes and behaviors (Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009). Accordingly, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argue that
consumers develop links between their self-concepts and
brands in an effort to separate themselves from others,
thus stimulating brand commitment.
Because consumers need for distinctiveness varies across
different cultural norms (Hofstede 1980), the effect of
brand self-relevance on brand commitment may vary
across cultures. First, we argue that individualist cultures
are more sensitive to a brands self-relevance than collectivist cultures. The logic underlying this is that consumers in individualist cultures wish to separate themselves from others (Hofstede 1980) and use products (or

68 Journal of International Marketing

brands) as a way to signal their identity (Escalas and

Bettman 2005; Fournier 1998; Kleine, Kleine, and Allen
1995). Therefore, a brand with a deep connection with a
consumers self-image should be positively evaluated as a
way to convey to other consumers his or her identity. In
contrast, consumers in collectivist cultures work toward
homogeneity with their peers (Hofstede 1980). In these
contexts, the communitys self-image is more relevant
than a persons own self-image, and therefore a brand
that establishes a deep connection with a consumers
self-image will be less relevant. Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
H3a: The positive influence of brands self-relevance
on customer commitment is stronger in individualist than collectivist cultures.
Second, long-term orientation will decrease the effect of
a brands self-relevance on the decision to remain with a
brand. Specifically, customers from a long-term-oriented
culture are sensitive to keeping face, while short-termoriented cultures may interpret face consideration as a
sign of weakness (Hofstede 2001). We argue that in
short-term-oriented cultures, consumers are more sensitive to the type of brands they consume. Consumers do
not want to use brands that are not consistent with their
own self-image. In contrast, consumers in long-termoriented cultures are less sensitive and responsive to a
brands relevance to their self and are more concerned
about protecting their image in front of others (Hofstede
1980). Thus, we predict the following:
H3b: The positive influence of brands self-relevance
on customer commitment is stronger in
short-term-oriented than long-term-oriented
cultures.
Third, a brands self-relevance should be more influential
in purchase decisions for consumers in cultures low on
power distance than for consumers in cultures high
on power distance. Specifically, in high-power-distance
cultures, purchase decisions are strongly influenced by
opinion leaders: The less powerful are likely to emulate
the purchase decisions of people with greater authority
(Dwyer, Mesak, and Hsu 2005). We argue that in
this context, consumers are more sensitive to the brands
that influential people buy than to the relevance of
brands to their self-image. In contrast, in cultures low on
power distance, consumers are not as sensitive to the
purchase decisions of people with power, and thus
the influence of self is greater. More formally, we
hypothesize the following:

H3c: The positive influence of brands selfrelevance on customer commitment is

stronger in cultures low on power distance
than in those high on power distance.

Brands Social Responsibility and Customer

Commitment Across Cultural Dimensions
Social responsibility refers to a set of activities that are
related to a companys perceived stakeholder and societal obligations (Sen and Bhattacharya 2001). An
increasing number of firms in every country are investing a significant amount of money in initiatives and in
advertising these in an effort to be perceived as socially
responsible (Drumwright 1996; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig 2004). The idea behind social responsibility initiatives is to generate value for the firms
stakeholders indirectly by generating value for other
interest groups, such as employees, the government, and
the community in which a firm operates (Porter and
Kramer 2006). Social responsibility is considered an
important constituent of brand image (Rust, Zeithaml,
and Lemon 2000) and an antecedent of consumers attitudes toward a brand (Berens, Van Riel, and Van
Bruggen 2005). To the extent that consumers perceive
themselves as being not only economic actors but also
members of a broader community (Handelman and
Arnold 1999; Nijssen and Douglas 2008), they can be
more committed toward brands that are perceived as
socially responsible (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003).
Culture is one of the most important variables influencing ethical decision making (Nijssen and Douglas 2008;
Rawwas 2001). As such, the efficacy of social responsibility may differ across countries with different cultures.
First, we argue that consumers from collectivist cultures
place greater value on social responsibility initiatives
than consumers from more individualist cultures.
Specifically, the positive effects of social responsibility
rest on the assumption that people perceive themselves
as part of a broader community. Individualist cultures
value the short-term betterment of the individual person, while collectivist cultures emphasize the needs of
the community and the benefits of consensus (Hofstede
2001). Therefore, consumers in collectivist cultures tend
to be more sensitive to socially responsible actions and
are more likely to incorporate societys well-being in
their purchase decisions because they generate value for
the broad community to which they belong. This logic
is consistent with Maignan (2001), who finds that
French and German consumers are more supportive of

socially responsible firms than U.S. consumers (the

United States is more individualist than France and Germany). Accordingly, we predict the following:
H4a: The positive influence of brands social
responsibility on customer commitment is
stronger in collectivist than individualist
cultures.
Socially responsible firms attempt to build long-term
relationships with the wider community in which they
operate (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig 2004; Sen
and Bhattacharya 2001). Social responsibility initiatives
involve activities related to the environment, poverty,
and, more generally, the long-term welfare of a community. For this reason, we argue that social responsibility
initiatives have a greater influence on consumers commitment to a brand in countries whose cultures have
long-term (rather than short-term) orientation because
consumers in long-term cultures positively value commitments toward initiatives that generate rewards in the
long run. In contrast, consumers in short-term-oriented
cultures value quick results (Hofstede 2001; Van
Everdingen and Waarts 2003). This logic is consistent
with Singh, Sanchez, and Bosques (2008) findings,
which indicate that consumers are more concerned
about social responsibility initiatives in the United Kingdom than in Spain (the United Kingdom is more longterm oriented than Spain). Thus, we hypothesize the
following:
H4b: The positive influence of brands social
responsibility on customer commitment is
stronger in long-term-oriented than shortterm-oriented cultures.
Second, we argue that socially responsible actions have
a greater influence on consumers commitment to a
brand in countries whose cultures are high on power
distance than in countries whose cultures are low on
power distance. The logic underlying this argument is
that consumers in low-power-distance cultures expect
firms to be socially responsible (because all members of
the society are viewed as needed to work toward equality across groups in the society). Therefore, social
responsibility does not have a large influence on consumers commitment to a brand. However, in highpower-distance cultures, in which firms are viewed as
more powerful, social responsibility can be an effective
measure for a brand to differentiate itself from competitors because firms are not expected to contribute to the
social welfare of society (and, thus, to work toward

Drivers of Brand Commitment 69

minimizing inequalities). Formally, we predict the

following:
H4c: The positive influence of brands social
responsibility on customer commitment is
stronger in cultures that are high on power
distance than in those that are low on power
distance.
Figure 1 depicts a graphical representation of our
hypotheses.

METHOD
Sample
Because our aim was to investigate the role of culture in
the relationships between key brand management decision elements and customers commitment to a brand in
the context of global brand management, we selected
China and the United Kingdom as locations to collect
data from consumers of a large, global furniture store
brand. We chose these countries according to their cultural orientation as Hofstede (1980, 2001) identifies it.
Hofstedes work on cultural dimensions indicates that
China and the United Kingdom differ along the three
cultural dimensions that are the object of our study:
individualism (China = 10 versus United Kingdom =
80), long-term orientation (China = 100 versus United

Kingdom = 20), and power distance (China = 80 versus

United Kingdom = 35). Customers of the same large,
global furniture store brand were asked to fill out a
questionnaire in one of the firms stores in Shanghai,
China, and London. Given that the furniture store
brand markets a similar lifestyle across different countries, we could collect data from customers who share
similarities in terms of consumption preferences and
lifestyles. This provides for a conservative test of our
analysis. In the end, we obtained 167 usable responses
from U.K. customers and 230 from Chinese customers.
Of the respondents, 58.7% were female and 41.3%
were male. Local managers confirmed that this was
largely representative of their customer base.

Development of Brand Innovativeness and

Self-Relevance Scales
A review of the previous literature revealed limited work
on scales to measure brands innovativeness and selfrelevance. Therefore, we developed two scales to measure these constructs. We followed a four-step procedure.
First, we conducted exploratory face-to-face depth
interviews with 18 consumers in the United Kingdom
and 31 consumers in China. We asked open-ended questions about the ability to provide novel solutions and
relevance to their daily lives. Second, using interview
findings, we generated a pool of 15 items with differ-

Figure 1. Cultural Dimensions and Customer Brand Commitment

Brand
innovativeness

Brand
customer
orientation
Brand
commitment
Brand
self-relevance

Brand
social
responsibility

70 Journal of International Marketing

Individualism/collectivism
Short-term/long-term orientation
Low/high power distance

ent nuances of meaning (Churchill 1979, p. 68) for the

brand innovativeness and brandcustomer selfrelevance scales. We pretested these items with 72 consumers in the United Kingdom and 64 in China to
strengthen their clarity, and we asked participants to
point out any ambiguity in responding to individual
items. We followed Thomson, MacInnis, and Parks
(2005) recommended procedure and removed the items
that were poorly understood.

coded one item in the brand innovativeness and selfrelevance scales to reduce yea-saying and nay-saying
response bias (Baumgartner and Steenkamp 2006).
Fourth, we conducted a pretest with 72 consumers in the
United Kingdom and made minor revisions to the wording of scale items on the basis of the final pretest. All
measures used seven-point Likert scales (1 = not at all,
and 7 = completely, unless stated otherwise). Table 1
lists the individual scale items and factor loadings.

Third, we discussed the pool of nine revised items for the

brand innovativeness and brandcustomer self-relevance
scales with academic experts and a focus group of MBA
students in both countries to test for clarity of construction and ensure domain representativeness. We reverse-

Final Measures
We adopted published scales whenever possible to help
locate our study in the existing body of research on the
management of customerbrand relationships. Customer

Table 1. Constructs and Measurement

Constructs
Commitment

Brand
innovativeness

Measurement

Brand
social
responsibility

.96

.90

Even if [brand name] would be more difficult to buy, I would still keep buying it.

.97

.98

I am willing to go the extra mile to remain a customer of [brand name].

.94

.95

I will not buy [brand name] in the future.a

.95

.95

[Brand name] provides effective solutions to customer needs.

.96

.95

Customers can rely on [brand name] to offer novel solutions to their needs.

.94

.93

[Brand name] always sells the same product offerings regardless of current
customer needs.a

.93

.92

.96

.89

.72

.72

.83

.78

needs.a

Every customers problem is important to [brand name].

[Brand name] tries to make every customer feel like he/she is the only customer.
customer.a

.91

.91

[Brand name] is famous for its attentiveness to customer needs.

.86

.85

It is easy to imagine a fulfilled life without [brand name].a

.97

.89

[Brand name] means a great deal to me.

.95

.87

I cannot imagine life without [brand name].

.92

.83

[Brand name] is one of the best things in my life.

.96

.94

I consider [brand name] as a socially responsible brand.

.77

.78

This brand is more beneficial to societys welfare than other brands.

.82

.79

.72

.73

[Brand name] does not provide individual attention to each

Brand
self-relevance

Factor
Loadings:
China

I feel loyal towards [brand name].

[Brand name] is not able to provide new solutions to customer

Brand
customer
orientation

Factor
Loadings:
United Kingdom

This brand does not contribute something to

society.a

aItems

were reverse coded.

Notes: Factor loadings are significantly different between countries.

Drivers of Brand Commitment 71

commitment measured customers willingness to stay

with a brand and make efforts to sustain this relationship in the future. We adapted four items from the
commitment scale that De Wulf, Odekerken-Schrder,
and Iacobucci (2001) developed to measure customers
brand commitment (U.K. = .87; China = .85).
We developed two four-item scales for brand innovativeness (U.K. = .86; China = .87) and customer selfrelevance (U.K. = .79; China = .82) for the specific
purpose of this study. We employed Donavan, Brown,
and Mowens (2004) published customer orientation
scale to assess the extent to which respondents perceived
the brand as being attentive to customers (U.K. = .87;
China = .85). We measured corporate social responsibility with Brown and Dacins (1997) published scale
(U.K. = .79; China = .78). We assessed the appropriateness of these measures for the purpose of this study
in one pretest (n = 58) and one focus group (n = 9).
We accounted for relationship length as a control:
The longer customers stay with a firm, the more difficult
they may find it to switch because of switching costs and
inertia; thus, they may indicate higher levels of commitment (Huang and Yu 1999; Wathne, Biong, and Heide
2001). The original questionnaire with construct items
worded in English was translated into Chinese (standard
Mandarin). Two independent experts, who were native
speakers in Chinese and the local dialect spoken
in Shanghai and the surrounding region, back-translated
and retranslated the questionnaire for accuracy and
consistency.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics

Variable

AVE

CR

SD

United Kingdom

.81

.94

4.74

1.6

China

.76

.93

6.05

1.20

United Kingdom

.75

.92

4.08

1.58

China

.65

.88

4.15

1.65

Brand Commitment

Brand Innovativeness

Brand Customer Orientation

United Kingdom

.56

.69

4.40

1.54

China

.57

.70

4.63

1.67

United Kingdom

.74

.92

5.43

1.71

China

.67

.89

6.05

1.19

United Kingdom

.57

.84

5.79

.90

China

.50

.80

5.76

.95

Brand Self-Relevance

Brand Social Responsibility

Relationship Length
United Kingdom

11.4

10.98

China

12.25

11.74

Notes: AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

Reliability and Validity Tests of the Scales

Common Method Variance
We assessed the quality of our measurement development by examining the unidimensionality, convergent
validity, reliability, and discriminant validity of the constructs. In support of unidimensionality and convergent
validity, retained items minimally loaded .70 on their
respective hypothesized construct (p < .01) and maximally loaded .40 on other constructs (Anderson and
Gerbing 1988). Table 2 provides descriptive statistics for
the individual constructs in the two countries. Furthermore, Cronbachs alphas were uniformly high, providing support for internal consistency. The average variance extracted and composite reliabilities exceeded the
recommended thresholds (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Finally,
in support of discriminant validity (see Table 3), the
squared correlation between any pair of constructs was
indeed less than the respective average variance
extracted for each of the constructs in the pair (Fornell
and Larcker 1981).

72 Journal of International Marketing

We employed two techniques to examine the potential

for common method variance. First, we used Harmans
one-factor test and ran an exploratory factor analysis of
all observed measures with varimax rotation (Podsakoff
and Organ 1986). In both the U.K. and the Chinese
groups, we found five clearly interpretable factorsone
for commitment and one for each of our four independent variableswith no significant cross-loadings
between the measures. In the U.K. sample, the first factor accounted for 23.2% of the variance, and the last for
17.0% of the variance. In the Chinese sample, the first
factor accounted for 18.8% of the variance, and the last
for 14.01% of the variance. These findings suggest that
common method variance should not be a serious threat
in our study.
Second, in light of possible limitations of Harmans onefactor test, we employed the partial correlation proce-

Table 3. Discriminant Validity

A. United Kingdom
1

1. Commitment

.81

2. Brand social responsibility

.40

.57

3. Brand customer orientation

.20

.43

.56

4. Brand innovativeness

.44

.45

.44

.75

5. Brand self-relevance

.45

.26

.16

.38

.74

B. China
1
1. Commitment

.76

2. Brand social responsibility

.42

.5

3. Brand customer orientation

.28

.38

.57

4. Brand innovativeness

.42

.47

.41

.65

5. Brand self-relevance

.35

.42

.19

.24

.67

Notes: Diagonal elements represent average variance extracted, and off-diagonal elements represent squared correlations between latent variables.

dure of including a marker variable in the model. Lindell and Whitney (2001) argue that common method
variance can be assessed by identifying a marker
variable (i.e., a variable that is not theoretically related
to at least one other variable in the study). Similar to
prior literature (e.g., Griffith and Lusch 2007), we used
respondent gender as the marker variable. The marker
variable was not related to any of the variables in the
model in any of the two groups. This provides further
evidence that common method variance is not a serious
problem.

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

Measurement Model
We tested our measurement and structural models
through structural equation modeling (Amos 16.0). We
tested our measurement model in the entire sample. It
resulted in an acceptable fit: 2/d.f. = 2.921, comparative fit index = .964, normed fit index = .946, goodnessof-fit index = .913, TuckerLewis index = .957, and root
mean square of approximation = .7.
Cross-cultural research relies on the possibility of generalizing different measures across multiple countries. To
achieve this goal, we ran a multigroup confirmatory

factor analysis to assess measurement invariance

(Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). In particular, we
controlled for two types of measurement invariance:
configural and metric. Configural invariance is achieved
if the pattern of factor loadings is similar in the United
Kingdom and China; that is, the factor loadings are significantly different from zero in both countries, the constructs exhibit discriminant validity, and the measurement model in the two countries is adequate. As Table 1
shows, factor loadings are significant and similar in
both countries. Furthermore, discriminant validity
exists in both countries (see Table 3). Finally, the measurement model demonstrates adequate fit in both countries. Thus, we show configural invariance between the
two countries in our study.
Metric invariance refers to the equality of metrics and is
established by setting constraints on factor loadings for
each of the items and comparing obtained model fits
with the base model (Steenkamp and Baumgartner
1998; Strizhakova, Coulter, and Price 2008b). We controlled for measurement invariance between the two
countries by comparing two models: (1) a configural
invariance model without equality constraints and (2) a
metric invariance model in which we constrained the
matrix of factor loadings to be invariant between the
two countries. Because we found no significant increase

Drivers of Brand Commitment 73

Table 4. Results: Determinants of Customer Brand Commitment

Total
Sample

United Kingdom
(Individualist, Short-Term
Oriented, Low
Power Distance)

China
(Collectivist, Long-Term
Critical Ratio for
Oriented, High
Difference Between
Power Distance)
United Kingdom and China

Brand innovativeness

.47

.46**

.23*

2.50

Brand customer orientation

.13

.06

.25*

2.14

Brand self-relevance

.31

.46**

.18*

2.02

Brand social responsibility

.11

.03

.25**

2.62

Relationship length

.02

.02

.03

R2

.61

.88

.43

.23

*p < .01.
**p < .001.

between the configural invariance model and the metric

invariance model (2(15) = 21.54, p > .5), we concluded that there is no difference in the measurement
structure between the two groups. Moreover, we
checked whether the critical ratio for each pair of factor
loading is greater than the threshold of 1.96, which
would suggest that a particular pair of factor loadings is
not invariant in the two groups. We found that for only
one item in the brand self-relevance scale, the difference
was significant. Therefore, we can conclude that there
is partial metric invariance in our sample. Consistent
with Steenkamp and Baumgartners (1998) suggested
procedure, we freed these loadings when testing our
hypotheses.

Structural Model
Our hypotheses test a cultural model effect on the
antecedents of brand commitment. Before presenting
the test of our hypotheses, we present the magnitude of
the effects in the entire sample. This structural model
has an acceptable fit: 2/d.f. = 2.067, comparative fit
index = .972, normed fit index = .948, goodness-of-fit
index = .913, TuckerLewis index = .95, and root mean
square error of approximation = .425. We found that
corporate social responsibility (b = .11, p < .05), customer orientation (b = .11, p < .01), brand innovativeness (b = .47, p < .001), and brand self-relevance (b =
.31, p < .001) have a positive effect on commitment.
After establishing the magnitude of the effects in the
entire sample, we proceeded to test our hypotheses
through a multigroup comparison (i.e., United Kingdom
versus China). We tested our hypotheses by analyzing

74 Journal of International Marketing

the critical ratio for difference between structural loadings. The critical ratio for difference tests the null
hypothesis that the relationship between two pairs of
structural loadings is the same in the two groups. At the
= .05 level, correlation between the same two
variables in the U.K. and China samples must be considered different if the critical ratio is higher than 1.96.
Table 4 shows the results.
H1 contended that brand innovativeness would have a
stronger effect on commitment in countries whose cultures were (a) individualist, (b) short-term oriented, and
(c) low on power distance than in countries with opposite cultures. We found that brand innovativeness had a
positive effect both in the United Kingdom (bUnited
Kingdom = .46, p < .001) and in China (bChina = .23, p <
.01). The critical ratio for difference between the structural loading linking brand innovativeness to commitment in the United Kingdom and China was greater
than the critical threshold (z = 2.50, p < .05). Thus, we
can conclude that the effect of brand innovativeness is
stronger in the United Kingdom than in China, in
accord with H1aH1c.
We predicted that customer orientation would have a
stronger effect on commitment in countries whose cultures were (a) collectivist, (b) long-term oriented, and (c)
high on power distance than in countries with opposite
cultures. We found that customer orientation had no
effect in the United Kingdom (bUnited Kingdom = .06, p >
.05), while it had a significant, positive effect in China
(bChina = .25, p < .01). The critical ratio for difference
between the structural loadings in the two groups was

greater than 1.96 (z = 2.14, p < .05), in support of

H2aH2c.
According to H3, brand self-relevance would be more
effective in affecting customers commitment to a brand
in countries whose cultures were (a) individualist, (b)
short-term oriented, and (c) low on power distance than
in countries with opposite cultures. We found that
brand self-relevance had a positive effect both in the
United Kingdom (bUnited Kingdom = .46, p < .001) and in
China (bChina = .18, p < .01). Moreover, in support of
H3aH3c, we found that the effect of brand selfrelevance was stronger in the United Kingdom than in
China (critical ratio for difference = 2.10).
Finally, H4 maintained that corporate social responsibility would have a greater impact on commitment in
countries with cultures that were (a) collectivist, (b)
long-term oriented, and (c) high on power distance than
in countries with opposite cultures. We found that corporate social responsibility had no effect in the United
Kingdom (bUnited Kingdom = .03, p > .05), while it had a
significant, positive effect in China (bChina = .25, p <
.001). The critical ratio for difference was greater than
the critical threshold of 1.96 (z = 2.62, p < .05). Because
China is more collectivist, long-term oriented, and
higher on power distance than the United Kingdom, the
results support H4aH4c.

decisions in different countries to enhance customer

commitment to their brands. Firm resources may well be
wasted when a brand invests in characteristics that have
no influence on customer commitment in a given cultural context. In particular, our findings reveal that there
are brand elements that have no significant impact on
customer commitment in some cultures. Our analysis
reveals that creating an aura of brand innovativeness
and creating brands that are relevant to consumers selfimage are more effective ways to strengthen consumers
commitment in countries whose cultures are individualist, short-term oriented, and low on power distance than
in cultures with opposite traits.
The results also show that being customer oriented and
socially responsible increases brand commitment in
countries with cultures that are collectivist, long-term
oriented, and high on power distance. In contrast, these
branding activities have no effect in countries with cultures that are individualist, short-term oriented, and low
on power distance. Therefore, this study makes an
important contribution to the literature on international
marketing and brand management in particular. Building on prior research on international marketing and
brand management, we show that an assessment of
customerbrand relationship strategies needs to account
for the cultural context in which brands aim to build
deeper connections with their customers (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler 1999; Cayla and Arnould 2008; Eckhardt
2005; Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Hsieh 2002).

DISCUSSION
Managerial Implications
Scholars have suggested that global brands enjoy two
main benefits: cost economies of developing a brand on
a global scale and the value of being recognized in different countries (Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Hsieh
2002). However, other scholars have pointed out that
global brands can suffer if they do not adapt to local
specificities (Cayla and Arnould 2008). Although global
brand management has received much attention in the
literature (Craig and Douglas 2000; Eckhardt 2005;
Holt, Quelch, and Taylor 2004; Hsieh 2002), the role of
cultural differences remains unclear. In this study, we
analyzed four different brand management decision elements that global brand managers can develop and
emphasize to increase customer brand commitment. The
findings of this study show that the effectiveness of each
of these elements is strictly dependent on the type of culture in which the brand operates.
From a theoretical viewpoint, these results point out
that companies must make different brand management

This study also helps resolve some limitations of prior

work. For example, Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) find
that social responsibility initiatives can reduce consumers intentions to purchase a firms products. We
argue that firms can reduce this risk by considering the
cultural context in which brands are positioned and
sold. Furthermore, although only bold marketers would
suggest that customer orientation does not matter, we
demonstrate that customer orientation does not always
significantly affect customers commitment to a brand.
This aspect has not been fully explored in the current literature on managing customerbrand relationships.
Our findings suggest that the most successful global
brands account for differences in cultural dimensions
and are managed accordingly.
Managerially, this study makes a critical contribution to
brand managers by empirically demonstrating which
brand-related activities are more effective in which cul-

Drivers of Brand Commitment 75

tural context. We compared two unique cultures along

the traits of individualism, long-term orientation, and
power distance. Our research illuminates ways of managing brands more effectively across cultures. The
analysis revealed that in individualist, short-termoriented and high-power-distance cultures, brand managers should just emphasize the innovativeness of their
brands and work to establish the brands relevance for
consumers; they can be less concerned about customer
orientation and socially responsible actions, because
they have no influence on consumer commitment. On
the basis of the findings, we encourage brand managers
active in countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, the United States, Norway, New Zealand, the
Netherlands, Sweden, and Australia to develop an innovative image for their brands and work to increase the
extent to which their brands are self-relevant for
customers.
In contrast, brand innovativeness, customer orientation,
self-relevance, and social responsibility equally contributed to brand commitment in China. On the basis
the findings, we encourage brand managers active in
countries such as China, Japan, South Korea, and India
to adopt a more balanced approach and emphasize all
four brand management elements because each of them
contributes to customer commitment.

Limitations and Further Research

The findings of this study are subject to the following
limitations, which provide promising avenues for further research: First, we studied culture at the nationstate level, thereby linking national culture to individual
countries. Further research could extend this studys
findings by measuring cultural variables at the individual or regional level. Countries may be considered
surrogates for culture; however, Hofstedes (1980) work
defining cultural contexts may also be questioned. For
example, within each country, there might be variations
among citizens and regions along each cultural dimension. Thus, greater insights into the effectiveness of different branding activities may be gained by examining
culture at the individual and regional levels.
Second, we collected data from two countries, and thus
it would be worthwhile to test our model with a larger
sample of countries with intermediate values on the cultural dimensions we studied to strengthen the confidence in the generalizability of the results. Finally, we
relied on exchange and brandself connection theory to
identify and test key brand measures in customerbrand

76 Journal of International Marketing

relationships across different cultural contexts. We

invite researchers to extend the current model by
employing a different framework. Such research has the
potential of deepening understanding about how brands
create value for customers and how culture influences
the value equation. A refined understanding of
customerbrand relationships across cultures would
provide useful guidance to firms global brand management activities and make a significant contribution to
the marketing literature.

REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Eric Joachimsthaler (1999), The Lure of
Global Branding, Harvard Business Review, 77 (November
December), 13744.
Anderson, C. James and David W. Gerbing (1988), Structural
Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended
Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3),
41123.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992),
Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 596612.
Bagozzi, P. Richard (1975), Marketing as Exchange, Journal
of Marketing, 39 (October), 3239.
and Youjae Yi (1988), On the Evaluation of Structural
Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (Spring), 7494.
Batra, Rajeev, Venkatram Ramaswamy, Dana L. Alden, JanBenedict E.M. Steenkamp, and S. Ramachander (2000),
Effects of Brand Local/Nonlocal Origin on Consumer Attitudes in Developing Countries, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 8395.
Baumgartner, Hans and Jan-Benedict E.M. Steenkamp (2006),
Response Biases in Marketing Research, in The Handbook
of Marketing Research, Rajiv Grover and Marco Vriens, eds.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 95109.
Bell, Simon J. and Andreas B. Eisingerich (2007), The Paradox
of Customer Education: Customer Expertise and Loyalty in
the Financial Services Industry, European Journal of Marketing, 41 (56), 46686.
Berens, Guido, Cees B.M. Van Riel, and Gerrit H. Van Bruggen
(2005), Corporate Associations and Consumer Product
Responses: The Moderating Role of Corporate Brand Dominance, Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 1835.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sankar Sen (2003), ConsumerCompany Identification: A Framework for Understanding
Consumers Relationships with Companies, Journal of Marketing, 67 (April), 7688.

Brown, Tom J. and Peter A. Dacin (1997), The Firm and the
Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product
Responses, Journal of Marketing, 61 (January), 6884.
Cayla, Julien and Eric J. Arnould (2008), A Cultural Approach
to Branding in the Global Marketplace, Journal of International Marketing, 16 (4), 86112.
Chaplin, Lan N. and Deborah Roedder John (2005), The
Development of Self-Brand Connections in Children and Adolescents, Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (June), 11929.
Churchill, Gilbert A., Jr. (1979), A Paradigm for Developing
Better Measures of Marketing Constructs, Journal of Marketing Research, 16 (February), 6473.
Craig, Samuel C. and Susan P. Douglas (2000), Configural
Advantage in Global Markets, Journal of International Marketing, 8 (1), 621.
De Wulf, Kristof, Gaby Odekerken-Schrder, and Dawn
Iacobucci (2001), Investments in Consumer Relationships: A
Cross-Country and Cross-Industry Exploration, Journal of
Marketing, 65 (October), 3350.
Deutsch, Morton (1985), Distributive Justice: A SocialPsychological Perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.

, Gaia Rubera, and Matthias Seifert (2009), Managing

Service Innovation and Interorganizational Relationships for
Firm Performance: To Commit or Diversify? Journal of
Service Research, 11 (May), 34456.
Escalas, Jennifer E. and James R. Bettman (2005), SelfConstrual, Reference Groups, and Brand Meaning, Journal
of Consumer Research, 32 (December), 37889.
Fornell, Claes and David F. Larcker (1981), Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (February), 3950.
Fournier, Susan (1998), Customers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal
of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 34373.
Griffith, David A., Michael Hu, and John K. Ryans (2000),
Process Standardization Across Intra- and Inter-Cultural
Relationships, Journal of International Business Studies, 31
(2), 303324.
and Robert F. Lusch (2007), Getting Marketers to
Invest in Firm-Specific Capital, Journal of Marketing, 71
(January), 12945.

Donavan, Todd D., Tom J. Brown, and John C. Mowen (2004),

Internal Benefits of Service-Worker Customer Orientation:
Job Satisfaction, Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors, Journal of Marketing, 68 (January), 12846.

, Matthew B. Myers, and Michael G. Harvey (2006),

An Investigation of National Cultures Influence on Relationship and Knowledge Resources in Interorganizational
Relationships Between Japan and the United States, Journal
of International Marketing, 14 (3), 132.

Douglas, Susan P. and Samuel C. Craig (1997), The Changing

Dynamic of Consumer Behavior: Implications for CrossCultural Research, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14 (4), 37995.

Guzman, Francisco and Audhesh K. Paswan (2009), Cultural

Brands from Emerging Markets: Brand Image Across Host
and Home Countries, Journal of International Marketing,
17 (3), 7186.

Drumwright, E. Minette (1996), Firm Advertising with a

Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria, Journal of Marketing, 60 (October), 7187.

Handelman, M. Jay and Stephen J. Arnold (1999), The Role of

Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension: Appeals to the
Institutional Environment, Journal of Marketing, 63 (July),
3348.

Dwyer, Sean, Hani Mesak, and Maxwell Hsu (2005), An

Exploratory Examination of the Influence of National Culture
on Cross-National Product Diffusion, Journal of International Marketing, 13 (2), 127.

Heskett, James L., Earl W. Sasser, and Leonard A. Schlesinger

(1997), The Service Profit Chain. New York: The Free Press.

Eckhardt, Giana M. (2005), Local Branding in a Foreign Product Category in Global Markets, Journal of International
Marketing, 13 (4), 5779.
and Michael J. Houston (2002), Cultural Paradoxes
Reflected in Brand Meaning: McDonalds in Shanghai,
China, Journal of International Marketing, 10 (2), 6882.
Eisingerich, Andreas B. and Simon J. Bell (2008), Perceived
Service Quality and Customer Trust: Does Enhancing Customers Service Knowledge Matter? Journal of Service
Research, 10 (February), 25668.
and Tobias Kretschmer (2008), In E-Commerce, More
Is More, Harvard Business Review, 86 (March), 2021.

Hofstede, Geert (1980), Cultures Consequences: International

Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
(2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values,
Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Holt, Douglas B., John A. Quelch, and Earl L. Taylor (2004),
How Global Brands Compete, Harvard Business Review,
82 (September), 6875.
Hsieh, Ming-Huei (2002), Identifying Brand Image Dimensionality and Measuring the Degree of Brand Globalization: A
Cross-National Study, Journal of International Marketing,
10 (2), 4667.

Drivers of Brand Commitment 77

Huang, Ming H. and Shihti Yu (1999), Are Consumers Inherently or Situationally Brand Loyal? A Set Intercorrelation
Account for Conscious Brand Loyalty and Nonconscious
Inertia, Psychology and Marketing, 16 (6), 52344.
Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of Marketing, 57 (July), 5370.
Keller, Kevin L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and
Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 57 (January), 122.
Klein, Jill and Niraj Dawar (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumers Attributions and Brand Evaluations in
a Product-Harm Crisis, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 21 (September), 203217.
Kleine, Susan S., Robert E. Kleine III, and Chris T. Allen (1995),
How Is a Possession Me or Not Me? Characterizing Types
and an Antecedent of Material Possession Attachment, Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 32743.
Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial
Implications, Journal of Marketing, 54 (April), 118.
Lichtenstein, R. Donald, Minette E. Drumwright, and Bridgette
M. Braig (2004), The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits, Journal of Marketing, 68 (October), 1632.
Lindell, Michael K. and David J. Whitney (2001), Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research
Designs, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 11421.
Maignan, Isabelle (2001), Consumers Perceptions of Corporate Social Responsibilities: A Cross-Cultural Comparison,
Journal of Business Ethics, 30 (1), 5772.
Maxham, James G. and Richard G. Netemeyer (2003), Companies Reap What They Sow: The Effects of Shared Values
and Perceived Organizational Justice on Customers Evaluations of Complaint Handling, Journal of Marketing, 67 (January), 4662.
Mukherjee, Ashesh and Wayne D. Hoyer (2001), The Effect of
Novel Attributes on Product Evaluation, Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3), 46272.
Muiz, Albert M., Jr., and Thomas C. OGuinn (2001), Brand
Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (March),
41232.
Nijssen, Edwin J. and Susan P. Douglas (2008), Consumer
World-Mindedness, Social-Mindedness, and Store Image,
Journal of International Marketing, 16 (3), 84107.
zsomer, Aysegul and Selin Altaras (2008), Global Brand Purchase Likelihood: A Critical Synthesis and an Integrated Con-

78 Journal of International Marketing

ceptual Framework, Journal of International Marketing, 16

(4), 128.
Parasuraman, A., Leonard A. Berry, and Valarie A. Zeithaml
(1991), Refinement and Reassessment of the SERVQUAL
Scale, Journal of Retailing, 67 (4), 42050.
Park, C. Whan, Bernard J. Jaworski, and Deborah J. MacInnis
(1986), Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management, Journal of Marketing, 50 (October), 13545.
and Deborah J. MacInnis (2006), Whats In and Whats
Out: Questions on the Boundaries of the Attitude Construct,
Journal of Consumer Research, 33 (June), 1618.
Podsakoff, Philip M. and Dennis W. Organ (1986), SelfReports in Organizational Research: Problems and
Prospects, Journal of Management, 12 (4), 53145.
Porter, E. Michael and Mark R. Kramer (2006), Strategy and
Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility, Harvard Business Review, 84
(December), 7892.
Rao, Vithala R., Manoj K. Agarwal, and Denise Dahlhoff
(2004), How Is Manifest Branding Strategy Related to the
Intangible Value of a Corporation? Journal of Marketing, 68
(October), 12641.
Rawwas, Mohammed Y.A. (2001), Culture, Personality and
Morality: A Typology of International Consumers Ethical
Beliefs, International Marketing Review, 18 (2), 188210.
Reichheld, F. Frederick and Earl W. Sasser Jr. (1990), Zero
Defections: Quality Comes to Services, Harvard Business
Review, 68 (SeptemberOctober), 105111.
Rust, Roland T., Valarie A. Zeithaml, and Katherine N. Lemon
(2000), Driving Customer Equity: How Customer Lifetime
Value Is Reshaping Corporate Strategy. New York: The Free
Press.
Schau, Hope J., Albert M. Muiz Jr., and Eric J. Arnould
(2009), How Brand Community Practices Create Value,
Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 3051.
Schuiling, Isabelle and Jean N. Kapferer (2004), Real Differences Between Local and International Brands: Strategic
Implications for International Marketers, Journal of International Marketing, 12 (4), 97112.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, Sankar and C.B. Bhattacharya (2001), Does Doing Good
Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Marketing Research, 38
(May), 22544.

Shah, Denish, Roland T. Rust, A. Parasuraman, Richard Staelin,

and George S. Day (2006), The Path to Customer Centricity, Journal of Service Research, 9 (2), 11324.

Tuli, Kapil R., Ajay K. Kohli, and Sundar G. Bharadwaj (2007),

Rethinking Customer Solutions: From Product Bundles to
Relational Processes, Journal of Marketing, 71 (July), 117.

Shocker, Allan D., Rajendra K. Srivastava, and Robert W. Ruekert (1994), Challenges and Opportunities Facing Brand
Management, Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (May),
14958.

Van den Bulte, Christophe and Stefan Stremersch (2004),

Social Contagion and Income Heterogeneity in New Product
Diffusion: A Meta-Analytic Test, Marketing Science, 23 (4),
53044.

Singh, Jaywant, Maria del Mar Garcia Salmones Sanchez, and

Igancio R. Bosque (2008), Understanding Corporate Social
Responsibility and Product Perceptions in Consumer Markets:
A Cross-Cultural Evaluation, Journal of Business Ethics, 80
(3), 597611.
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009),
The Importance of a General Measure of Brand Engagement
on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a Scale,
Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (February), 92104.
Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E.M., Rajeev Batra, and Dana L.
Alden (2003), How Perceived Brand Globalness Creates
Brand Value, Journal of International Business Studies, 34
(1), 5365.
and Hans Baumgartner (1998), Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research,
Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1), 7890.
, Frenkel ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), A
Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National
Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness, Journal
of Marketing, 63 (April), 5569.
Strizhakova, Yuliya, Robin Coulter, and Linda Price (2008a),
Branded Products as a Passport to Global Citizenship: Perspectives from Developed and Developing Countries, Journal
of International Marketing, 16 (4), 5785.
, , and (2008b), The Meanings of
Branded Products: A Cross-National Scale Development and
Meaning Assessment, International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 25 (2), 8293.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park
(2005), The Ties That Bind: Measuring the Strength of Consumers Emotional Attachments to Brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 7791.

Van Everdingen, Yvonne M. and Eric Waarts (2003), The

Effect of National Culture on the Adoption of Innovations,
Marketing Letters, 14 (3), 21732.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Eric Arnould (1988), My Favorite
Things: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into Object Attachment,
Possessiveness, and Social Linkage, Journal of Consumer
Research, 14 (March), 53147.
Wathne, Kenneth H., Harald Biong, and Jan B. Heide (2001),
Choice of Supplier in Embedded Markets: Relationship and
Marketing Program Effects, Journal of Marketing, 65
(April), 5466.
Yeniyurt Sengun and Janell D. Townsend (2003), Does Culture
Explain Acceptance of New Products in a Country? An
Empirical Investigation, International Marketing Review, 20
(4), 37796.

THE AUTHORS
Andreas B. Eisingerich is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Imperial College Business School at Imperial
College London. His research focuses on brand management, customer relationships, and service innovation
strategies. He obtained his doctoral degree from the
University of Cambridge and is a research fellow at the
University of Southern Californias Marshall School of
Business.
Gaia Rubera is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the
Eli Broad College of Business at Michigan State University. Her research interests focus on globalization, marketing strategy, aesthetic innovation, creativity, and
organizational structures that foster innovation. She
obtained her doctoral degree from Bocconi University
and has published in Journal of Service Research, Marketing Letters, and other journals.

Drivers of Brand Commitment 79