The effect of individualism on private brand perception: A cross-cultural investigation

Abstract

Purpose
– The present study has three aims: to find out whether individualism affects consumers' preference for private versus national brands; to assess the effect of individualism on the perceived importance of brand image dimensions (country‐of origin, packaging design and manufacturer reputation); and to assess the degree of cross‐cultural differences in individualism within a specific country, Israel.

Design/methodology/approach
– A total of 400 private brand customers participated in the study. Participants were students from eight universities and colleges in Israel. Students were carefully chosen to represent diverse cultural groups, based on their mother tongue: 100 students were native speakers of Arabic, 100 native speakers of Russian, 100 native speakers of Amharic and 100 native speakers of Hebrew.

Findings
– Individualism predicted the inclination to purchase store brands better than demographic variables such as age, sex and income. Culture affected the importance of country of origin, and moderated the effect of individualism on the importance of manufacturer identity..

Originality/value
– The paper documents research that is unique in studying psycho‐behavioral aspects of private brand consumers from the perspective of cultural differences, a venture that has rarely been taken in the past.

Full text

Journal of Consumer Marketing
Emerald Article: The effect of individualism on private brand perception:
a cross-cultural investigation
Sigal Tifferet, Ram Herstein
Article information:
To cite this document: Sigal Tifferet, Ram Herstein, (2010),"The effect of individualism on private brand perception: a
cross-cultural investigation", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss: 4 pp. 313 - 323
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761011052350
Downloaded on: 11-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 77 other documents
Citations: This document has been cited by 2 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by RUPPIN ACADEMIC CENTER
For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The effect of individualism on private brand
perception: a cross-cultural investigation
Sigal Tifferet
Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel, and
Ram Herstein
Business School, Ruppin Academic Center, Emek Hefer, Israel
Abstract
Purpose – The present study has three aims: to find out whether individualism affects consumers’ preference for private versus national brands; to
assess the effect of individualism on the perceived importance of brand image dimensions (country-of origin, packaging design and manufacturer
reputation); and to assess the degree of cross-cultural differences in individualism within a specific country, Israel.
Design/methodology/approach – A total of 400 private brand customers participated in the study. Participants were students from eight universities
and colleges in Israel. Students were carefully chosen to represent diverse cultural groups, based on their mother tongue: 100 students were native
speakers of Arabic, 100 native speakers of Russian, 100 native speakers of Amharic and 100 native speakers of Hebrew.
Findings – Individualism predicted the inclination to purchase store brands better than demographic variables such as age, sex and income. Culture
affected the importance of country of origin, and moderated the effect of individualism on the importance of manufacturer identity..
Originality/value – The paper documents research that is unique in studying psycho-behavioral aspects of private brand consumers from the
perspective of cultural differences, a venture that has rarely been taken in the past.
Keywords Individual psychology, Brands, Cross-cultural management, Customer satisfaction, Israel
Paper type Research paper
An executive summary for managers and executive
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
Private labels have accounted for a considerable portion of
total sales in the western world for the past several decades.
The market share represented by private brands in North
America and Europe, for example, is currently between 15
percent and 50 percent (ACNielsen, 2006). The significance
of private brands to customers has been of substantial interest
to both manufacturers and distributors. The question of
greatest interest to both branding researchers and brand
managers is this: how do customers perceive private brands in
comparison to manufacturers’ brands? Myers’ (1967) study
was one of the first to investigate the relationship between
customers and private brands. He studied the characteristics
of buyers of private-label grocery products and the
relationship between purchase of private-label products and
store loyalty. Myers’ work generally indicates that socio-
demographic and personality characteristics differentiate
private-label buyers from non-buyers. Other studies, such as
those of Bellizzi et al. (1981), Cunningham et al. (1982) and
Ghose and Lowengart (2001) show that customers rate and
perceive private labels below national brands. According to
Richardson et al. (1994), the explanation of this phenomenon
is related to the consumer tendency to use product
positioning and price as a cue to quality.
Despite these trends, today’s market share data prove that
customers prefer private brands in many categories. The
positioning of private brands has improved substantially as a
result of retailers’ decisions to adopt quality improvement
strategies. According to Quelch and Harding (1996), the days
when a stigma was attached to buying private labels are gone.
Indeed, private brands have become an important strategy for
many retailers all over the world, particularly in western
European countries, Canada and the USA. And yet, despite
all this, the knowledge that we have on the private brand
customer is very limited mainly with respect to cross-cultural
aspects of consumer psychology.
The present study has three aims. The first is to learn
whether individualism affects consumers’ preferences for
private versus national brands. The second is to assess the
effect of individualism on the perceived importance of brand
image dimensions (country-of origin, packaging design and
manufacturer reputation). These two goals intend to increase
our understanding of the influence of an individualistic
lifestyle on consumer behavior. The third aim is to appraise
cross-cultural variance in individualism within a specific
country, Israel.
Literature review
Individualism
The distinction between individualistic and collectivistic
societies is crucial to the cross-cultural understanding of
consumer behavior (Maheswaran and Shavitt, 2000).
Triandis (1995) identified four attributes that distinguish
individualistic from collectivistic outlooks. These are:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Journal of Consumer Marketing
27/4 (2010) 313– 323
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]
[DOI 10.1108/07363761011052350]
313

(1) Whether the self is defined via personal or collective
aspects (Triandis, 1989) – i.e. whether it is seen as
independent or interdependent (Markus and Kitayama,
1991a).
(2) Whether personal goals have priority over in-group goals
or vice versa (Triandis, 1990; Yamaguchi, 1994).
(3) Whether exchange (Mills and Clark, 1982) and
rationality (Kim et al., 1994) are emphasized over
communal relationships and relatedness.
(4) Whether personal attitudes or social norms are more
important as determinants of social behavior (Davidson
et al., 1976; Bontempo and Rivero, 1992; Kashima et al.,
1992; Trafimow and Finlay, 1996).
Individualism is a social pattern in which loosely linked
individuals view themselves as independent of the collective
and are primarily motivated by their own preferences, needs,
and rights and by the contracts they have established with
others (Hui and Villareal, 1989; Triandis et al., 1990;
Triandis, 1990, 1995). An individualistic society emphasizes
personal freedom, self-expression, and independence (Miller,
1984, 1988; Markus and Kitayama, 1991a, b; Reykowski,
1994). Members of such societies tend to be motivated by
competition, challenging work, self-reliance, autonomy,
advancement, recognition, pleasure, earnings, and
dominance (Hui and Villareal, 1989; Triandis, 1990; Han
and Shavitt, 1994; Ronen, 1994). Individualism is related to
the concept of “low-context cultures” (Hall, 1989). “Low-
context cultures” are characteristic of Western countries in
which the individual is valued over the group. Such cultures
are characterized by explicit communication, in comparison
to the implicit communication in “high context cultures” in
which the message is not clearly conveyed by words and must
be interpreted from the context.
Cross-cultural differences in individualism
The cross-cultural research in consumer psychology that has
looked at the effects of individualism has done so, mostly, in
terms of international comparisons. Most cross-cultural
studies of individualism have compared Americans to
members of other nations, mainly East Asians (Chan,
1994), and have drawn the conclusion that individualism is
more prevalent in American than in East Asian cultures
(Yamaguchi, 1994; Kitayama et al., 1997). An international
meta-analysis on individualism comparing samples from the
USA and other regions (Oyserman et al., 2002) revealed no
difference between America and other English-speaking
countries, and only relatively small differences between
Western Europe and the USA, the latter being higher in
individualism. The difference between Western Europe and
Central Europe (Russia) in individualism appeared to be
negligible. Africans tend to rank as slightly more
individualistic than East Asians and Middle Easterners as
less. Most researchers have found little difference in
individualism between the USA and South America. In
general, regional analyses support the assumption that
Americans are more individualistic than members of other
cultures (Oyserman et al., 2002). In a pioneering study,
Hofstede (1984) identified differences in individualism using
a sample of IBM employees in 40 countries. In this study
Israel was rated as having an average level of individualism.
Private branding
Private brands have been given many names over the years,
including “distributor brand”, “retail brand”, “private label”,
“store brand”, “own label”, and “own brand”. These terms
refer to a brand owned, controlled, and sold exclusively by
particular retailers (Sethuraman, 1995; Dhar and Hoch,
1997). The introduction and development of private brands
can be viewed as a strategy for improving store image and
profitability. Private brand entry may increase category value
and expand category sales (Hauser and Shugan, 1983;
Mason, 1990), while increasing customer loyalty by
improving the store’s image vis-a
`-vis other retailers (Hoch
and Lodish, 1998; Corstjens and Lal, 2000; Ailawadi et al.,
2001). In addition, private brand entry changes the nature of
the manufacturer-retailer interaction (Hoch and Banerji,
1993; Raju et al., 1995; Hoch, 1996), enabling retailers to
strengthen their bargaining position with regard to national
brand manufacturers (Narasimhan and Wilcox, 1998).
Specifically, private brands may allow the retailer to
negotiate lower wholesale prices on national brands (Mills,
1995; Scott-Morton and Zettelmeyer, 2004). A private brand
may also generate profits via high unit margins and potentially
high volume (Ailawadi and Harlam, 2001).
A review of the private branding phenomenon reveals five
eras in the history of private brands (Herstein and Gamliel,
2004): the emergence of private brands (1840-1860); their
decline (1861-1928); their reemergence and rise (1929-
1945); two decades of stability (1946-1975); and the private-
brands-versus-manufacturer-brands era (1976-present).
During these five periods, three kinds of private brands were
developed (Abe, 1997):
(1) low-quality, low-price brands (characterizing developed
markets);
(2) average-quality, low-price brands (characterizing
emerging markets); and
(3) high-quality, average-price brands (characterizing
developing markets).
The global private label market grew by 6 percent in 2004,
comprising 16 percent of total retail sales (Euromonitor,
2005). The developed markets, which include Europe and
North America, have maintained their position as the leading
private brand markets, with an aggregated private brand share
of sales reaching 23 percent and 16 percent respectively, but
with a moderate growth rate (5 per cent). Conversely, the
private brand in emerging markets has achieved rapid growth
of up to 11 per cent, and currently accounts for 6 percent of
sales. In developing markets, private brands still hold a very
low market share of around 2 percent, and are stymied by a
lack of means to increase their growth rate (ACNielsen,
2006).
Private brands and consumer behavior
The question “who buys private brands?” has been researched
mainly in terms of three elements that influence the
consumer’s brand choice: the quality of private brands, the
price of private brands, and individual customer
characteristics (demographics). With respect to the first two,
there is some inconsistency in the literature, with some
researchers finding quality more important and others, price.
For instance, Hoch and Banerji (1993) found that the higher
and more consistent the quality of private brands, the higher
the private brand dollar share (based on an analysis of 180
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
314

grocery categories from Selling Area Marketing Inc. (SAMI)).
According to their research, consumers who buy private
brands do so more because they believe the brands to be of
good quality than because of the products’ low price; indeed,
they found no evidence that the size of the price differential
between national brands and private brands affects the private
brand share. Similarly, Sethuraman and Mittelstaedt (1992),
in a study of 116 categories from Information Resources Inc.
(IRI), found no significant relationship between the price of
private brands and their volume share, while Richardson et al.
(1996) found that consumers of private brands are influenced
directly by the brand’s perceived quality. On the other hand,
Myers (1967) and Glemet and Mira (1993) found that
consumers prefer private brands over national brands due to
their lower price.
With respect to individual demography, it appears that
private brand consumers are more elderly (Frank and Boyd,
1965; Dhar and Hoch, 1997) and more educated than
consumers of national brands (Frank and Boyd, 1965; Burger
and Scott, 1972; Cunningham et al., 1982; Hoch, 1996).
Findings on the income level of private brand consumers have
been inconsistent, with some researchers (e.g. Frank and
Boyd, 1965; Starzynski, 1993, Dhar and Hoch, 1997) finding
them to be low-income, and others (e.g. Coe, 1971; Murphy,
1978) placing them in a higher income category.
A considerable degree of cross-cultural research in consumer
psychology has focused on the effects of individualism versus
collectivism on consumer preferences (Dutta-Bergman and
Wells, 2002). Researchers in this realm tend to attribute a high
level of importance to these two terms (Kagitcibasi and Berry,
1989; Kagitcibasi, 1994; Tafarodi and Swann, 1996); indeed
Maheswaran and Shavitt (2000) see the distinction between
individualist and collectivist societies as crucial to the cross-
cultural understanding of consumer behavior. Despite this
attention, however, there has been little application of these
concepts with regard to brand preferences. The only studies to
research the link between individualism or collectivism and
brand choice are those of Dutta-Bergman and Wells (2002)
and Sun et al. (2004). Dutta-Bergman and Wells (2002)
explored the values and lifestyles of idiocentric (individualist)
and allocentric (collectivist) US consumers, and found that
idiocentric consumers were more brand-savvy. The results of
Sun et al.’s (2004) study on Chinese, Japanese, British and US
consumers also found that consumers in the individualist
cultures (Britain and the USA) were more brand-savvy than
those in the collectivist cultures (China and Japan). The
concept of “brand-savvy” in the work of these two groups
indicates a preference for national brands in contrast to
unknown brands (generic and private brands). These national
brands are characterized by better quality, attractive packaging
and high price, and benefit as well from the country-of-origin
effect – i.e. they bear the name of a well-known manufacturer
from a specific country, which is perceived as specializing in the
category of goods to which the product belongs (De
Chernatony and McDonald, 1998).
Consumer preference
Consumer buyers almost always approach the marketplace
with a well-established set of tastes and preferences
(Christopher, 1996; Hoyer and Brown, 1990). Single brand
preference can be regarded as a measure of loyalty, which also
provides valuable information for customer management and
market segmentation (Gralpois, 1998). According to Alreck
and Settle (1999) consumer preferences for a product or
brand might be built through one or more of six distinct
modes:
(1) Need association – the product or brand is linked to one
need through repeated association.
(2) Mood association – the mood is attached to the product
or brand through repeated association.
(3) Subconscious motivation – suggestive symbols are used
to excite consumers’ subconscious motives.
(4) Behavior modification – consumers are conditioned to
buy the brand by manipulating cues and rewards.
(5) Cognitive processing – perceptual and cognitive barriers
are penetrated to create favorable attitudes.
(6) Model emulation – idealized social lifestyle models are
presented for consumers to emulate.
Although different consumers might build the same
preference for a particular brand through different modes,
certain modes are vastly more effective for a given type of
product or service than for others (Alreck and Settle, 1999).
Research questions and propositions
The present study examines the effect of individualism on
consumer behavior in a cross-cultural sample using the
following research questions and propositions:
RQ1. Does individualism affect consumers’ preference for
private versus national brands?
P1. Consumers with high levels of individualism will
show a lower inclination to purchase private brands.
Consumers use brands in order to express themselves (De
Chernatony and McDonald, 1998). Since individualists place
a high value on personal expression (Dutta-Bergman and
Wells, 2002), we hypothesized that individualism will be
associated with a lower inclination to purchase private brands,
which tend to have lower self-identity or esteem. Consumers
high in individualism will prefer to purchase expensive
national brands over more economical private brands, not
only as a way to stand out, but also as a way to show
superiority.
RQ2. Does individualism affect consumers’ perceived
importance of brand image dimensions?
P2. Consumers with high levels of individualism will
attribute greater importance to brand image
dimensions such as packaging design, country of
origin and manufacturer brand name reputation.
In addition to a low preference for purchasing private brands,
consumers with high levels of individualism were
hypothesized to attribute greater importance to brand image
dimensions such as packaging design, country of origin and
manufacture brand name reputation, since these attributes are
more extrinsic in nature.
RQ3. Are there cross-cultural differences within a specific
country, namely, Israel?
We assumed that within the Israeli population members of
different cultures (specifically, speakers of Hebrew, Arabic,
Russian, and Amharic) would differ in their level of
individualism. Since the literature on these specific cultures
was scarce we could not speculate further. One study did not
find differences in individualism between Hebrew and Arabic
speaking students (Oyserman, 1993).
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
315

Methodology
Subjects and setting
A total of 400 private brand customers participated in the
study. These private brand customers clarified that their main
purchasing preference was private brands rather than national
brands. Participants were students (44 percent male, 56
percent female) from eight universities and colleges in central
and northern Israel. Students were carefully chosen to
represent diverse cultural groups, based on their native
language: 100 students were native speakers of Arabic, 100
native speakers of Russian, 100 native speakers of Amharic
and 100 native speakers of Hebrew. Students were
approached during breaks between classes, and asked
whether they were familiar with private brands. Those who
answeredintheaffirmativewereaskedtofillouta
questionnaire. The study took place from April to June
2007. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 14.
Measures
Socio-demographic data collected from participants included
age, gender, maternal education (1 ¼no formal education,
2¼elementary education, 3 ¼high-school education,
4¼higher education), family gross income (according to
Israeli quartiles), and family size.
To estimate their willingness to purchase private brands,
participants were asked the following question: “If you were
offered a brand marketed by a well-known food chain, equal
in quality to the leading brand but 15 percent cheaper, would
you purchase it?” Willingness was rated on a scale of 1
(“definitely not”) to 5 (“definitely”). Participants were asked
to answer this question for ten products, including five food
products (chocolate, cooking oil, hummus, rice and frozen
meat) and five non-food products (laundry detergent,
toothpaste, shampoo, liquid soap and garbage bags). A pilot
study affirmed that all of the products were marketed as
private brands, and that all cultural groups in the study
purchased them. Internal reliability was high (Cronbach’s
a
¼0.89). Exploratory Factor Analysis found two constructs
within the scale; the first consisted mostly of food products
while the second consisted mainly of non-food products (see
Table I).
Loadings over 0.3 are indicated in the table. Indicated cells
specify items with a high loading on factor. Total variance
extracted by the two factors ¼62 percent. Rotation method:
Varimax; Eigenvalues .1.0
To examine the importance of brand dimensions of private
brands, customers were asked to indicate, for each of the ten
products, the importance of packaging design (Cronbach’s
a
¼0.92), manufacturer’s brand name reputation
(Cronbach’s
a
¼0.88) and country of origin (Cronbach’s
a
¼0.94). Importance was rated on a scale of 1 (“not
important at all”) to 5 (“extremely important”). Exploratory
factor analysis confirmed that items correlated according to
the brand dimension, and not according to the product (see
Table II).
Loadings over 0.3 are indicated in the table. Indicated cells
specify items with a high loading on factor. Total variance
extracted by the three factors ¼59 percent. Rotation method:
Varimax; Eigenvalues .1.0
Individualism was assessed using Triandis and Gelfand’s
(1998) Scale of Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and
Collectivism (HVIC). The scale is divided into four subscales,
with four items in each subscale: vertical collectivism,
horizontal collectivism, vertical individualism and horizontal
individualism. In the present study we used the last two
subscales as a scale for individualism (Cronbach’s
a
¼0.71).
Collectivism was not expected to be related to private brand
perceptions. The scale was translated into Hebrew using
back-translation. Items were rated on a five-point scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Table I Factor analysis results for the willingness to purchase private
brands
Product Factor 1 Factor 2
Chocolate 0.57 0.38
Laundry powder 0.45 0.66
Oil 0.56 0.51
Toothpaste 0.82
Hummus 0.78
Shampoo 0.73
Frozen meat 0.69
Liquid soap 0.44 0.64
Rice 0.48 0.60
Garbage bags 0.88
Table II Factor analysis results for the importance attributed to
extrinsic brand image dimensions
Products and brand dimensions Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Chocolate manufacturer 0.69
Laundry powder manufacturer 0.72
Oil manufacturer 0.73
Toothpaste manufacturer 0.77
Hummus manufacturer 0.64
Shampoo manufacturer 0.70
Frozen meat manufacturer 0.67
Liquid soap manufacturer 0.73
Rice manufacturer 0.77
Garbage bags manufacturer 0.45
Chocolate packaging 0.75
Laundry powder packaging 0.80
Oil packaging 0.81
Toothpaste packaging 0.83
Hummus packaging 0.79
Shampoo packaging 0.80
Frozen meat packaging 0.66
Liquid soap packaging 0.79
Rice packaging 0.75
Garbage bags packaging 0.64
Chocolate country of origin 0.83
Laundry powder country of origin 0.81
Oil country of origin 0.87
Toothpaste country of origin 0.86
Hummus country of origin 0.79
Shampoo country of origin 0.81
Frozen meat country of origin 0.73
Liquid soap country of origin 0.82
Rice country of origin 0.83
Garbage bags 0.58
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
316

Sample items include “I’d rather depend on myself than
others” (horizontal individualism), and “It is important that I
do my job better than others” (vertical individualism). The
HVIC has shown good construct validity (Triandis and
Gelfand, 1998). Exploratory factor analysis confirmed that
items were divided into these two categories (see Table III).
Loadings over 0.3 are indicated in the table. Indicated cells
specify items with a high loading on factor. Total variance
extracted by the two factors ¼55 percnet. Rotation method:
Varimax; Eigenvalues .1.0
Results
The average participant age was 24.3 (SD ¼2.8), and the
average family consisted of 4.6 people (SD ¼2.3). Of the 400
participants 16.6 percent reported that their mother had no
formal education, 9.8 percent reported that their mother had
elementary-school education, 30.4 percent reported maternal
high-school education and 43.2 percent reported that their
mothers had higher education. In comparison to Israeli
norms, 18.3 percent were from families in the first quartile of
family gross income, 39.9 percent in the second quartile, 27.3
percent in the third, and 14.4 percent in the fourth.
Correlations, means and variances of all study variables are
presented in Table IV.
RQ1 and RQ2 were first assessed using the full cross-cultural
sample as a whole. As predicted, individualism was linked to
attributing greater importance to brand image dimensions.
Contrary to the hypothesis, when using the full sample, there was
no confirmation that individualism was linked to a weaker
tendency to purchase private brands. The prediction of
consumers’ inclination to purchase private brands was
addressed in a multiple regression analysis with sex, age, family
size, family income, and individualism as predictors. The
analysis explained only 1 percent of population variance,
F(5,368) ¼1.03, n.s. None of the variables had a significant
effect on the inclination to purchase private brands.
The prediction of the importance of the manufacturer’s
identity was addressed in a multiple regression analysis with
sex, age, family size, family income, and individualism as
predictors in the first stage. The analysis explained only 2
percent of population variance, F(5,368) ¼1.35, n.s. Of all
the variables, only individualism had a significant effect in
predicting the importance of the manufacturer’s identity. In
the second stage only individualism was retained in the
model. The new model now explained 1 percent of the
population variance, F(1,398) ¼4.27, p,0.05.
Individualism (
b
¼.10) was linked to attributing greater
importance to manufacturer identity.
The prediction of package importance was addressed in a
multiple regression analysis with sex, age, family size, family
income, and individualism as predictors in the first stage. The
analysis explained 4 percent of population variance,
F(5,368) ¼3.27, p,0.05. Of all the variables,
individualism and gender had a significant effect in
predicting package importance. In the second stage only
individualism and gender were retained in the model. The
new model now explained 4 percent of the population
variance, F(2,397) ¼8.24, p,0.05. Individualism
(
b
¼0.16) and female gender (
b
¼0.12) were linked to
attributing greater importance to package design.
The prediction of the importance of the country of origin
was addressed in a multiple regression analysis with sex, age,
family size, family income, and individualism as predictors in
the first stage. The analysis explained 3 percent of population
variance, F(5,368) ¼2.54, p,0.05. Of all the variables, only
individualism had a significant effect in predicting the
importance of the manufacturer’s identity. In the second
stage only individualism was retained in the model. The new
model now explained 2 percent of the population variance,
F(1,398) ¼6.17, p,0.05. Individualism (
b
¼.12) was
linked to attributing greater importance to manufacturer
identity.
RQ3 was assessed using ANOVA. Cross-cultural differences
were found in demographics such as family size
(F(3,384) ¼26.79, p,0.01) and income (F(3,384) ¼15.06,
p,0.01), individualism (F(3,384) ¼15.06, p,0.01), the
tendency to purchase private brands (F(3,384) ¼15.06,
p,0.01), and the importance of some brand dimensions
(packaging (F(3,396) ¼4.53, p,0.01) and country of origin
(F(3,396) ¼3.48, p,0.01).) No cross-cultural differences
were found in the importance attributed to the manufacturer’s
identity (F(3,396) ¼0.5, n.s.) Post-h oc Bonferroni comparisons
showed that of the four cultural groups, Hebrew speakers were
significantly less individualistic than speakers of Arabic,
Amharic, and Russian (see Table V.)
After finding that the cultures differed on many variables,
RQ1 and RQ2 were reassessed using an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). The tendency to purchase private brands and
the importance of brand dimensions were predicted using
both individualism and culture as explaining variables, while
controlling for demographics (sex, age, family size, and family
income; see Table VI). Results indicate that after controlling
for demographics, individualism had a significant effect on the
tendency to purchase private brands (F(29,287) ¼1.64,
p,0.05, partial eta
2
¼0.14), culture had a significant
effect on the importance attributed to the country of origin
(F(3,287) ¼4.26, p,0.05, partial eta
2
¼0.04), and an
interaction between individualism and culture had a
significant effect in the importance attributed to the
manufacturer’s identity (F(50,287) ¼1.45, p,0.05, partial
eta
2
¼0.20; see Figure 1). No significant effects were found
for the importance attributed to packaging.
Discussion
This research had three main objectives. Our first objective
was to learn more about the profile of the private brand
Table III Factor analysis results for individualism
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
I would rather depend on myself than others 0.77
I rely on myself most of the time; I rarely rely
on others 0.65
I often do “my own thing” 0.73
My personal identity, independent of others,
is very important to me 0.69
It is important that I do my job better than
others 0.31 0.64
Winning is everything 0.82
Competition is the law of nature 0.72
When another person does better than I do, I
get tense and aroused 0.71
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
317

consumer in terms of psychological rather than demographic
aspects, thereby filling a gap in the literature. We chose to
focus on individualism because the distinction between
individualistic and collectivist outlooks appears to be the
most significant cultural difference among consumers from
different backgrounds (Triandis, 1996), and because this is an
area to which much attention has been paid in applied
psychological research (Kagitcibasi and Berry, 1989;
Kagitcibasi, 1994; Tafarodi and Swann, 1996). In
accordance with earlier studies that presented individualistic
consumers as more brand-savvy (Dutta-Bergman and Wells,
2002; Sun et al., 2004), the current study found that
individualistic consumers are less inclined to purchase private
brands.
Table IV Correlations, means, and standard deviations of study variables
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1: Willingness to purchase private brands 1.00
2: Manufacturer importance 20.16 ** 1.00
3: Packaging importance 20.12 *0.29 ** 1.00
4: Country of origin importance 20.18 ** 0.26 ** 0.27 ** 1.00
5: individualism 20.02 0.10 *0.16 ** 0.12 *1.00
6: Age 0.07 0.04 20.05 0.01 20.07 1.00
7: Gender (1 5male, 2 5female) 20.1 0.05 0.12 *0.09 20.01 20.21 ** 1.00
8: Maternal education 20.09 20.02 20.03 20.03 20.11 *20.07 0.02 1.00
9: Family income 0.02 0.04 20.04 20.03 20.04 0.01 20.08 0.38** 1.00
10: Family size 20.02 20.04 0.05 0.09 0.11 *20.15 ** 0.05 20.34 ** 20.02 1
Mean 3.48 3.26 2.82 2.83 3.59 24.3 1.57 3.00 4.56 2.38
Std Dev 0.84 0.81 0.94 1.04 0.58 2.84 0.49 1.09 2.32 0.94
Notes: *
p
,0.05; **
p
,0.01
Table V Means and standard deviations of study variables by culture
Hebrew speakers Arabic speakers Russian speakers Amharic speakers
Family size 4.1
bd
(2.0) 5.1
acd
(1.9) 3.3
cd
(1.4) 5.8
ac
(2.9)
Income 2.7
bd
(1.0) 2.4
ad
(0.9) 2.6
d
(0.9) 1.9
abc
(0.8)
Individualism 3.4
bcd
(0.5) 3.7
a
(0.7) 3.6
a
(0.5) 3.6
a
(0.5)
Inclination to purchase private brands 3.6
b
(0.8) 3.2
ad
(0.8) 3.5 (0.9) 3.6
b
(0.8)
Importance of packaging 2.6
bd
(0.9) 2.9
a
(0.9) 2.8 (0.9) 3.0
a
(1.0)
Importance of manufacturer identity 3.2 (0.7) 3.3 (0.8) 3.2 (0.8) 3.2 (0.9)
Importance of country of origin 2.5
cd
(1.0) 2.9 (1.0) 2.9
a
(1.0) 2.9
a
(1.1)
Notes:
a
¼Differ significantly from Hebrew speakers;
b
¼Differ significantly from Arabic speakers;
c
¼Differ significantly from Russian speakers;
d
¼Differ
significantly from Amharic speakers
Table VI ANCOVA results for the intention to purchase private brands, and the importance attributed to brand dimensions
F
(partial eta
squared)
F
(partial eta
squared)
F
(partial eta
squared)
F
(partial eta
squared)
Source df
Intention to
purchase private
brands
Importance of
country of origin
Importance of
manufacturer
identity
Importance of
packaging
Main effects
4
Individualism 29 1.64 *(0.14) 1.07 (0.10) 1.49 (0.13) 1.23 (0.11)
Culture 3 1.31 (0.01) 4.26 *(0.04) 1.08 (0.01) 0.47 (0.01)
Interaction
Individualism*Culture 50 0.69 (0.11) 0.98 (0.15) 1.45 *(0.20) 0.95 (0.14)
Covariates
Sex 1 2.10 (0.01) 1.16 (0.00) 0.23 (0.00) 2.09 (0.01)
Age 1 0.05 (0.00) 0.38 (0.00) 2.22 (0.01) 0.01 (0.00)
Family size 1 0.13 (0.00) 1.30 (0.00) 0.56 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Family income 1 0.76 (0.00) 0.10 (0.00) 0.11 (0.00) 0.13 (0.00)
Notes: *
p
,0.05
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
318

The second objective of this research was to examine the link
between individualism and the importance attributed to
extrinsic brand image dimensions (country of origin,
manufacturer brand name reputation and packaging
design). Our findings indicate that the effect of
individualism on the importance attributed to the
manufacturer’s identity is dependent on the consumer’s
culture. Consumers from three of the cultures (Hebrew,
Arabic and Amharic speakers) showed a positive link between
individualism and the importance of manufacturer brand
name reputation. In contrast, Russian speaking consumers
showed a negative link between individualism and the
importance of manufacturer brand name reputation.
The third objective of this research was to look for
differences in the levels of individualism displayed by four
ethnic subcultures in Israel. Our findings show that native
Hebrew speakers, who tend to be more European in outlook
and culture, were significantly less individualistic than those
whose mother tongue was Arabic, Amharic or Russian. These
findings contradict Oyserman et al.’s (2002) international
meta-analysis of individualism, which clearly shows that
Western cultures are much more individualistic than African
or Middle Eastern cultures. There may be two explanations
for these results. The first is that while Israeli society is
comprised of many subcultures, over the years these have
been unified into a single, common culture that has reduced
the differences between the levels of individualism in people
from different backgrounds. The second is that our sample,
comprised exclusively of students, was skewed. Young people
from Arab, Ethiopian, and Russian backgrounds may
experience more difficulty than native Hebrew speakers in
getting a university degree, mainly because of language
barriers. Being in university thus gives these students
tremendous status and is a symbol of uniqueness and
success. For this reason they may become more individualistic
and even become opinion leaders for others in their cultural
groups.
Practical implications
In light of the impressive rates of increase in private brands all
over the world, and recently even in emerging countries
(Herstein and Jaffe, 2007), characterizing private brand
consumers across cultures, psychologically as well as
demographically, is indispensable for international
marketers. On the basis of the findings of this study,
marketers who deal with private brands should invest less in
marketing their products to individualist consumers, since
they are less inclined to purchase private brands. In addition,
local distributors in Israel should not invest heavily in creating
different branding strategies for the four subgroups we
identified, since the differences between them in terms of
individualistic lifestyle are minor. Although Hofstede’s model
of national culture is a powerful instrument for international
retailing strategy in certain countries (De Mooij and
Hofstede, 2002), in Israel these subcultures have probably
become less relevant over the years, suggesting that marketers
should focus their branding strategy on a common marketing
concept which reflects the country’s values. Nevertheless, the
cultural groups in our study did show marked differences in
Figure 1 Interaction effect of individualism and culture on the importance attributed to the manufacturer’s identity
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
319

the importance they attribute to the country of origin.
Consumers from immigrant cultures (Russian and Amharic
speakers) attributed more importance to the country of origin
of the private brand, in comparison to Hebrew speakers. This
result may reflect a general tendency in immigrant societies.
Research implications
The present study showed that psychological variables such as
individualism may predict consumer behavior such as the
inclination to purchase store brands. Furthermore, the effect
of individualism was stronger than that of demographic
variables such as age, sex and income. Interestingly, culture
affected the importance of country of origin, and moderated
the effect of individualism on the importance of manufacturer
identity. These results support future research on the effects
of psychological variables on consumer behavior.
Future studies may attempt to measure individualism by a
new scale (Sivadas et al., 2008), which may be better suited
for cross-cultural marketing studies. Future research should
also examine private brand consumers in markets of varying
economic strength in order to elucidate the influence of
market economics on the consumer’s willingness to buy
private brands in other product categories.
References
Abe, M. (1997), “A new era of private brands in Japan:
opportunities and challenges for foreign retailers and
manufacturers”, Journal of Asian Business, Vol. 13 No. 4,
pp. 21-7.
ACNielsen (2006), International Research into Private Label
FMCG sales, ACNielsen, New York, NY.
Ailawadi, K.L. and Harlam, B. (2001), “The effects of store
brands on retailer profitability: an empirical analysis”,
working paper, Tuck Business School, Dartmouth College,
Hannover, NH.
Ailawadi, K.L., Neslin, S. and Gedenk, K. (2001), “Pursuing
the value conscious consumers: store brands versus national
brand promotions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65 No. 1,
pp. 71-89.
Alreck, P.L. and Settle, R.B. (1999), “Strategies for building
consumer brand preference”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 130-44.
Bellizzi, J.A., Kruckeberg, H.F., Hamilton, J.R. and Martin,
W.S. (1981), “Consumer perceptions of national, private,
and generic brands”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57, Winter,
pp. 56-70.
Bontempo, R. and Rivero, J.C. (1992), “Cultural variation in
cognition: the role of self-concept in the attitude-behavior
link”, paper presented at the meeting of the American
Academy of Management, Las Vegas, NV.
Burger, P.C. and Scott, B. (1972), “Can private brand buyers
be identified?”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 9,
pp. 219-22.
Chan, D.K. (1994), “COLINDEX: a refinement of three
collectivism measures”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C.,
Kagitcibasi,C.,Choi,S.andYoon,G.(Eds),
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 200-10.
Christopher, M. (1996), “From brand values to customer
value”, Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing
Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 55-66.
Coe, B.D. (1971), “Private versus national preference among
lower and middle-income consumers”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 4, pp. 61-72.
Corstjens, M. and Lal, R. (2000), “Building store loyalty
through store brands”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 281-92.
Cunningham, I.C.M., Hardy, A.P. and Imperia, G. (1982),
“Generic brands versus national brands and store brands”,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 25-32.
Davidson, A.R., Jaccard, J.J., Triandis, H.C., Morales, M.L.
and Diaz-Guerrero, R. (1976), “Cross-cultural model
testing: towards a solution of the etic-emic dilemma”,
International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 11, pp. 1-13.
De Chernatony, L. and McDonald, M.H.B. (1998), Creating
Powerful Brands, Butterworth Heinemann, Stoneham, MA.
De Mooij, M. and Hofstede, G. (2002), “Convergence and
divergence in consumer behavior: implications for
international retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 78,
pp. 61-9.
Dhar, S.K. and Hoch, S.J. (1997), “Why store brand
penetration varies by retailer”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 208-27.
Dutta-Bergman, M.J. and Wells, W.D. (2002), “The values
and lifestyles of idiocentrics and allocentrics in an
individualist culture: a descriptive approach”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 231-42.
Euromonitor (2005), New Report on the World Market for
Private Label, Euromonitor, Chicago, IL.
Frank, R.E. and Boyd, H.W. (1965), “Are private-brand
prone grocery customers really different?”, Jour nal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 27-35.
Ghose, S. and Lowengart, O. (2001), “Perceptual positioning
of international, national and private brands in a growing
international market: an empirical study”, The Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Glemet, F. and Mira, R. (1993), “The brand leader’s
dilemma”, The McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 2, pp. 3-15.
Gralpois, B. (1998), “Fighting the illusion of brand loyalty”,
Direct Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 62-5.
Hall, E.T. (1989), Beyond Culture, Anchor Books, Garden
City, NY.
Han, S.-P. and Shavitt, S. (1994), “Persuasion and culture:
advertising appeals in individualistic and collectivistic
cultures”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 30,
pp. 326-50.
Hauser, J.R. and Shugan, S.M. (1983), “Defensive marketing
strategies”, Marketing Science, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 319-60.
Herstein, R. and Gamliel, E. (2004), “An investigation of
private branding as a global phenomenon”, Journal of
Euromarketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 59-77.
Herstein, R. and Jaffe, E.D. (2007), “Launching store brands
in emerging markets: resistance crumbles”, Journal of
Business Strategy, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 13-19.
Hoch, S.J. (1996), “How should national brands think about
private labels?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 89-102.
Hoch, S.J. and Banerji, S. (1993), “When do private labels
succeed?”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 57-67.
Hoch, S.J. and Lodish, L.M. (1998), “Store brands and
category management”, working paper, The Wharton
School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
320

Hofstede, G. (1984), Culture’s Consequences: International
Differences in Work-related Values, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Hoyer, W.D. and Brown, S.P. (1990), “Effects of branding
awareness on choice for a common, repeated-purchase
product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17, pp. 141-8.
Hui, H.C. and Villareal, M. (1989), “Individualism-
collectivism and psychological needs: their relationships in
two cultures”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 20,
pp. 310-23.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1994), “A critical appraisal of individualism
and collectivism”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi,
C., Choi, S.-C. and Yoon, G. (Eds), Individualism and
Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications,Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 52-65.
Kagitcibasi, C. and Berry, J.W. (1989), “Cross-cultural
psychology: current research and trends”, Annual Review
of Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 493-531.
Kashima, Y., Siegel, M., Tanaka, K. and Kashima, E.S.
(1992), “Do people believe behaviors are consistent with
attitudes? Toward a cultural psychology of attribution
processes”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 331,
pp. 111-24.
Kim, U., Triandis, H.C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S. and Yoon,
G (Eds) (1994), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory,
Method, and Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Kitayama,S.,Markus,H.R., Matsumoto, H. and
Norasakkunkit, V. (1997), “Individual and collective
process in the construction of the self: self-enhancement
in the United States and self-criticism in Japan”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 72, pp. 1245-67.
Maheswaran, D. and Shavitt, S. (2000), “Issues and new
directions in global consumer psychology”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 59-66.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991a), “Culture and self:
implications for cognition, emotion and motivation”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 98, pp. 24-253.
Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991b), “Cultural variation
in the self-concept”, in Strauss, J. and Goethals, G.R.
(Eds), The Self: Interdisciplinary Approaches, Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 18-48.
Mason, C.H. (1990), “New product entries and product class
demand”, Marketing Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 58-73.
Miller, J.G. (1984), “Culture and the development of
everyday social explanation”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 961-78.
Miller, J.G. (1988), “Bridging the content-structure
dichotomy: culture and the self”, in Bond, M.H. (Ed.),
The Cross-cultural Challenge to Social Psychology, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 266-81.
Mills, D.E. (1995), “Why retailers sell private labels”, Journal
of Economics and Management Strategy, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 509-28.
Mills, J. and Clark, M.S. (1982), “Exchange and communal
relationships”, Review of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 3, pp. 121-44.
Murphy, P.E. (1978), “The effect of social class on brand and
price consciousness for supermarket products”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 54, pp. 33-42, 89.
Myers, J.G. (1967), “Determinants of private brand attitude”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4, pp. 73-81.
Narasimhan, C. and Wilcox, R.T. (1998), “Private-labels and
the channel relationship: a cross-category analysis”, Journal
of Business, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 573-600.
Oyserman, D. (1993), “The lens of personhood: viewing the
self and others in a multicultural society”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,Vol.65No.5,
pp. 993-1009.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M. and Kemmelmeier, M. (2002),
“Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of
theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses”, Psychological
Bulletin, Vol. 128 No. 1, pp. 3-72.
Quelch, J.A. and Harding, D. (1996), “Brands versus private
labels: fighting to win”, Harvard Business Review, January-
February, pp. 99-109.
Raju, J.S., Sethuraman, R. and Dhar, S.K. (1995), “The
introduction and performance of store brands”,
Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 957-78.
Reykowski, J. (1994), “Collectivism and individualsim as
dimensions of social change”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C.,
Kagitcibasi,C.,Choi,S.-C.andYoon,G.(Eds),
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 239-50.
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. and Jain, A.K. (1994), “Extrinsic
and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand
quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 28-36.
Richardson, P.S., Jain, A.K. and Dick, A. (1996), “Household
store brand proneness: a framework”, Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 159-85.
Ronen, S. (1994), “An understanding of motivational need
taxonomies: a cross-cultural confirmation”, in Triandis,
H.C., Dunnete, M. and Hough, L. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Vol. 4,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 241-70.
Scott-Morton, F. and Zettelmeyer, F. (2004), “The strategic
positioning of store brands in retailer-manufacturer
negotiations”, Review of Industrial Organization, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 161-94.
Sethuraman, R. (1995), “A meta-analysis of national brand
and store brand cross-promotional price elasticities”,
Marketing Letter, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 275-86.
Sethuraman, R. and Mittelstaedt, J. (1992), “Coupons and
private labels: a cross-category analysis of grocery
products”, Psychology & Marketing, November-December,
pp. 487-500.
Sivadas, E., Bruvold, N.T. and Nelson, M.R. (2008), “A
reduced version of the horizontal and vertical individualism
and collectivism scale: a four-country assessment”, Journal
of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 201-10.
Sun, T., Horn, M. and Merritt, D. (2004), “Values and
lifestyles of individualists and collectivists: a study on
Chinese, Japanese, British and US consumers”, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 318-31.
Starzynski, G. (1993), The Private Label Consumer: Is There
One?, ACNielsen, Northbrook, IL.
Tafarodi, R.W. and Swann, W.B. (1996), “Individualism-
collectivism and global self-esteem: evidence for a cultural
trade-off”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Vol. 27,
pp. 651-72.
Trafimow, D. and Finlay, K. (1996), “The importance of
subjective norms for a minority of people: between-subjects
and within-subjects analyses”, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, pp. 820-8.
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
321

Triandis, H.C. (1989), “The self and social behavior in
differing cultural contexts”, Psychological Review, Vol. 96,
pp. 506-20.
Triandis, H.C. (1990), “Cross-cultural studies of
individualism and collectivism”, in Berman, J. (Ed.),
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1989, University of
Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 41-133.
Triandis, H.C. (1995), Individualism and Collectivism,
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Triandis, H.C. (1996), “The psychological measurement of
cultural syndromes”, American Psychologist,Vol.51,
pp. 407-15.
Triandis, H.C. and Gelfand, M.J. (1998), “Converging
measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and
collectivism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 118-28.
Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C. and Hui, H.C. (1990),
“Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol.59,
pp. 1006-20.
Yamaguchi, S. (1994), “Collectivism among the Japanese: a
perspective from the self”, in Kim, U., Triandis, H.C.,
Kagitcibasi,C.,Choi,S.-C.andYoon,G.(Eds),
Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and
Applications, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 175-88.
Further reading
Anvik, L. and Ashton, D. (1979), “A profile of intentions
groups for generic branded grocery products”, in Gitlow,
H.S. and Wheatley, E.W. (Eds), Developments in Marketing
Sciences, Vol. 2, Academy of Marketing Science, Coral
Gables, FL, pp. 1-4.
Baltas, G. (1999), “Understanding and managing store
brands”, The Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 175-87.
Granzin, K.L. (1981), “An investigation of the market for
generic products”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 39-55.
Jaffe, E.D. and Nebenzahl, I.D. (2001), National Image &
Competitive Advantage, Copenhagen Business School Press,
Copenhagen.
About the author
Sigal Tifferet teaches psychology at the Ruppin Academic
Center, Israel. Her research interests are in the areas of
evolutionary psychology and consumer behavior. Dr Tifferet
has a PhD from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Sigal
Tifferet is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
tifferet@ruppin.ac.il
Ram Herstein is head of marketing program and associate
professor of marketing, Ruppin Academic Center, Israel. His
research area is branding and corporate identity and his
papers have been published in leading marketing and business
academic journals.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in
toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the
research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the
material present.
For several decades, sales of private brands have grown
substantially in developed markets. This rising market share
has triggered increased interest among manufacturers,
distributors and the marketing fraternity. The latter has
focused especially on identifying factors which influence the
purchase of these products and some analysts claim that
buyers can be identified through personality and socio-
demographic characteristics.
The growth of private brands
Previous research showed that people rate manufacturer
brands more highly than private label alternatives. Price and
positioning were used for such evaluation purposes. However,
data suggests a changing pattern and growing preference
among some consumers for private brands. Retailer moves to
implement quality improvement initiatives is recognized as
one reason for the improved image. Consequently, earlier
stigma connected to purchasing own label products has
diminished and retailers across the globe now consider such
brands key to their success. Analysts report improved store
image, higher volumes and margins, increased category sales,
and greater profitability among the benefits of this strategy.
Retailers boasting successful own label brands are also better
positioned to demand improved terms with national brand
manufacturers.
Several distinct phases have been noted in the history of
private brands and during this time products have gradually
evolved from being cheap, inferior offerings to become high-
quality products that provide value for money. Even though
many individuals are now enticed by the quality of private
branded goods, price appears to remain the key factor for
others. Evidence on this point is inconclusive, as it is
concerning the income level of a typical private brand
consumer. Research does, however, indicate a tendency for
older and better educated people to select retailer brands over
manufacturer alternatives. While markets like Europe and
North America continue to account for the bulk of sales,
strong growth has occurred in emerging markets. Low share
within developing markets suggests scope for further
expansion, although capability to increase performance
remains limited.
Despite this interest, any insight into private brand
consumers from a cross-cultural perspective is minimal.
Various scholars adopting this approach to consumer behavior
start by distinguishing individualistic societies from those
more collectivist in nature as this aspect is perceived as a
significant cultural differentiator. Whether personal or group
objectives take precedence is among the factors used to
categorize nations accordingly. Definition of the self through
either individual or collective attributes provides further
indication as does whether people are autonomous or
interdependent. In communities where individuality prevails,
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
322

competition, personal achievement and recognition are highly
valued.
Exploration of individualism from a cross-cultural
perspective has encompassed various nations and
continents. Findings show the United States as most
individualistic, closely followed by other English-speaking
countries like those in Western Europe. By comparison,
individualism is less evident within East Asian and Middle
Eastern cultures.
How individualism and collectivism impact on consumer
preference has been the focus of much cross-cultural research.
Distinguishing between the two society types is considered
key to furthering knowledge of consumer behavior. Although
exploration of individualism and collectivism in relation to
brand preferences is limited, scholars have found more brand
knowledge among consumers within individualist cultures.
Such consumers have expressed a preference for
manufacturer rather than generic or private alternatives. In
addition to common perceptions about being higher quality,
national brands also often benefit from more attractive
packaging and positive country-of-origin (COO) effect.
Research and findings
In the current study, Tifferet and Herstein aim to further
existing knowledge of consumer behavior within a cross-
cultural setting by exploring the relationship between
individualism and preference for either own label or
manufacturer brands. The importance placed on brand
image is also considered. Analysts point out that brands have
symbolic value to many consumers and note that personal
expression is central to those rating high on individualism.
Assumptions are made that this desire to “stand out” or
“show superiority” will make individualists choose more
expensive national brands rather than private label
alternatives that are perceived to lack self-identity and
esteem. It is consequently also proposed that such
consumers are likely to place greater emphasis on extrinsic
brand image aspects like COO, packaging design and
manufacturing reputation.
The study focused on private brand customers in northern
and central Israel. College students were targeted in order to
secure diverse cultural representation, based on native
language. A sample of 400 was obtained with 56 percent
being female and 44 percent male. Socio-demographic data
relating to age, maternal education, family gross income and
family size was collected.
Participant response to a question was used to measure
their willingness to buy private various branded food and non-
food products. For each of the ten products, respondents also
indicated how important they considered packaging design,
COO and reputation of manufacturer’s brand name.
Findings revealed that:
.Individualist consumers attributed more relevance to
brand image dimensions.
.None of the demographic variables had a substantial
impact on the inclination to purchase private brands.
.Only the individualism variable was associated with
ascribing greater significance to manufacturer identity.
However, this was also dependent on the consumer’s
culture.
.Individualism and gender were the only variables to
significantly predict package importance.
.Hebrew speakers rated considerably lower in
individualism than those speaking Arabic, Amharic or
Russian.
Culture significantly affected the importance placed on COO.
In line with previous research, the authors also discovered
that individualism was a significant factor in any decision to
purchase private label goods. Specifically, a propensity to buy
such brands is lower among individualistic consumers.
The lower individualism among Hebrews was somewhat
unanticipated, given this segment’s inclination toward a
European outlook and culture. Ongoing unification of Israel’s
many subcultures is cited as one possible explanation for this
apparent reduction in the amount of individualism between
people from diverse backgrounds. According to Tifferet and
Herstein, the choice of student participants could also be
significant. In their view, having to overcome language
difficulties could serve to give non-Hebrew speakers more
status in university and increase their sense of individuality
and uniqueness.
Ideas for marketing and further study
Marketers should be wary of investing heavily in promoting
own label goods to individualist consumers. Based on this
evidence, such consumers are less likely to buy private brands.
The authors similarly point out the minimal differences in
terms of individualism found between the four subgroups in
the study and advise marketers in Israel against developing
separate branding strategies for each group. The gradual
erosion of differences between subcultures invites the
assumption that strategy based around a “common
marketing concept which reflects the country’s values” may
be more appropriate. In comparison to Hebrew speakers,
however, respondents from immigrant cultures attached
greater importance to the COO of the private brand. Future
research may show this to be a tendency within immigrant
cultures in general. Scholars might also find interest in
exploring markets of varying strength to ascertain the impact
of market economics on private brand consumers.
(A pre
´cis of the article “The effect of individualism on pr ivate
brand perception: a cross-cultural investigation”. Supplied by
Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
The effect of individualism on private brand perception
Sigal Tifferet and Ram Herstein
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 27 · Number 4 · 2010 · 313 – 323
323
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints