General Cultural Differences Between UK And India Marketing Essay

This chapter presents the theoretical framework from the reviewed literature about consumer innovation, adopter categories and cultural influences, including definitions of culture and Hofstede’s cultural definition and his scale of cultural dimensions. The chapter ends with general cultural difference between UK and India is clarified by using Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions.

The concept of innovators originates from the diffusion of innovations. An innovation is any product or service that consumers perceive to be new. If an innovation is successful (most are not), it spreads through the population (Solomon et al. 2006).

The term diffusion of innovation refers to the process whereby a new product, service or idea spreads through a population (Solomon et al. 2006).

2.2 Adopter Categories and Two Propensities

Adopter categories classify a consumer’s position in relation to other consumers in terms of time (or when the consumer adopts new products). Literatures on diffusion frequently cite five adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards, while the criterion for this adopter categorization is innovativeness (Rogers 2003). The adopter categories are generally depicted with the characteristics of a normal distribution that describes the total population that ultimately adopts a product, spanning its lifecycle. The percentage of adopters by category sequence is that 2.5% of the population fall into the Innovators group, and 13.5% into the Early Adopters, 34% into the Early and 34% into the Late-majority with 16% in the Laggards (Rogers 2003). The most wide-ranging dissertation on the diffusion of innovations is to be found in Rogers’s works (Rogers 1962, 1983, 1995, 2003; Rogers and Shoemaker 1971). He describes dominant characteristics of each of these categories briefly, as follows: innovates are venturesome; early adopters are respectable; the early majority are deliberate; the late majority are sceptical and laggards are traditional.

Adopters can be categorized into two groups of “innovators” and “imitators” where imitators consist of early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Bass 1969). Innovators tend to innovate, acting mainly based on external influence sources and purchasing independent of the social milieu while imitators are influenced by others in their decision.

Further these two groups are referred to as the “propensity to innovate” and “propensity to imitate” (Gatignon et al. 1989). This classification follows the conceptualization of Midgley and Dowling (1978) where the adoption of innovation is seen as a predisposition rather than as a personality trait inherent in the consumer. This thesis uses these two propensities to differentiate among adopter categories.

2.3 Definition of Innovators and Innovativeness

Consumer innovators can be defined as the relatively small group of consumers who are the earliest purchasers of an innovation. But in this definition the concept earliest is a relative term. Rogers (2003) defines innovators as the first 2.5 percent of the social system to adopt an innovation. Other researchers have defined innovators in terms of their innovativeness. In other instances, researchers have defined innovators as those falling within an arbitrary proportion of the total market (Schiffman and Kanuk 2004). For the purpose of this thesis, innovators refer to those consumers, characterized by the highest level of innovativeness.

Innovators are important because they buy in first, and they are the first to be copied by early adopters (Carter 1998). In addition, innovators are likely to be heavier users of the products category and represent a substantial market in terms of product volume. They are thought to be opinion leaders and more knowledgeable about new products (Flynn and Goldsmith 1993).

Innovativeness is the degree to which an individual or other unit of adoption is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other members of a social system (Rogers 2003). Midgley and Dowling (1978) describe innate innovativeness in all people as different and emphasize consumer innovativeness as the core of the theory of innovation diffusion.

2.4 Interpersonal Influence

Diffusion theory has traditionally been defined as a theory of communications (Rogers 2003) and mainly focuses on communication channels, which are the means that information about an innovation is transmitted to or among the members of a social system.

These means consist of mass media and interpersonal communications. Members in a society have different propensities for relying on media habits or interpersonal channels when seeking information about an innovation (Mahajan et al. 1990) but interpersonal communications are more important influences in determining the speed with which an innovation will be adopted (Tellefsen and Takada 1999). Interpersonal influence is especially significant to the diffusion of new products because it represents the driving force behind the spread of new things (Rogers 2003).

Consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence is defined as: “The need to identify or enhance one’s image with significant others through the acquisition and use of products and brands, the willingness to conform to the expectations of others regarding purchase decisions, and/or the tendency to learn about products and services by observing others and/or seeking information from others” (Bearden et al. 1989).

Interpersonal influence can be categorized into informational interpersonal influence and normative interpersonal influence (Bearden, et al, 1989). Informational influence occurs when individuals have the tendency to accept information as evidence of reality from others while normative influence involves the tendency to conform to the expectations of others (Burnkrant and Consineau 1975). Susceptibility to informational influence refers to the tendency to trust information obtained from others as being an accurate representation of the truth (Deutsch and Gerard 1955). Information influence can result as consumers either research for information from others who are considered knowledgeable or from observation of other’s behaviour (Park and Lessig 1977). Normative interpersonal influence is positively related to an individual’s tendency to conform, a personality trait found more strongly in some individuals (Bearden et al. 1989; Goldsmith et al. 2005).

Bearden et al. (1989) developed and tested a two-factor (normative and informational), 12-item measure of consumer susceptibility to interpersonal influence as a personality trait that varies across individuals. Lalwani (2002) pointed out a high susceptibility to interpersonal influence score signifies a tendency to be influenced by others in making decisions, whereas a low susceptibility to interpersonal influence score suggests more independence in the decision-making process.

Innovators prefer to use and to rely on impersonal sources instead of interpersonal sources of information (Clark and Goldsmith 2006). A key component of Midgley and Dowling (1978)’s definition of innovativeness and influences, is the willingness to adopt a product early in its diffusion in the absence of interpersonal influence. Applying the four dimensions propounded by Hofstede to distinguish national cultures for developing hypotheses pertaining to patterns of adoption of new products, namely innovative and imitative behaviour of consumers and the sources of influence that instigate them into such behaviours, Sangeeta Singh (2006) conducted a study and the results suggest that consumers in different national cultures are likely to vary in their susceptibility to normative influence and interpersonal communications. Consumers in a large power distance, strong uncertainty avoidance and/or feminine cultures may be convinced into adopting new products through normative influence while those from more collectivistic cultures are more influenced by interpersonal communications (Singh 2006). Clark and Goldsmith (2006) examined the effects of innovativeness and attention to social comparison information on normative and informational by using self-report surveys administered to 326 students in public university in United States. From the analysis they suggested innovativeness is negatively related to susceptibility to interpersonal influence.

2.5 Innovators and Innovativeness in Marketing Practice

According to Daghfous et al. (1999) earlier economists such as Griliches and Mansfield studied diffusion of innovations themselves and before 1960 very few researchers in marketing were interested in the analysis of the spread of innovations. Based on diffusion theory, several issues of consumer theory have been discussed. Since the 1980s an issue in focus is “consumer innovativeness”, and most of this research has been conceptual (Hirschman 1980; Midgley and Dowling 1978). The translation of innovativeness into adoption (Hirschman 1980) is dependent on the characteristics being considered (Gatignon and Robertson 1985).

Generally, it is agreed that that the characteristics of the adopters, and more specifically their innovativeness, determine the probability that they will adopt a new product at a specific stage of its diffusion (Rogers 1962; Rogers and Shoemaker 1971; Midgley and Dowling 1978; Goldsmith and Hofacker 1991; Chatterjee and Eliashberg 1990; Roberts and Urban 1988).

Many marketing researchers concerned with the consumer innovativeness have examined the personality traits that distinguish the innovative consumer from other consumers (Foxall 1984; Foxall and Goldsmith 1988; Robertson and Gatignon 1991; Hirschman 1980; Manning et al. 1995; Midgley and Dowling 1978). The innovators generally are open-minded (or low in dogmatism), extroverts, liberal, low in authoritarianism, able to deal with complex or ambiguous stimuli and creative (Hoyer and Ridgway 1984). They are more knowledgeable about new products, (Goldsmith and Flynn 1995), to have greater media exposure, to be less price sensitive and also heavier users of the products category (Goldsmith et al. 1998). Research on perceived risk and the trial of new products overwhelmingly indicates that innovative consumers are low-risk perceivers, i.e., they experience little fear of trying new products or services.

Innovators were originally assumed to be constant for each individual and this personality trait remains constant over a person’s lifetime. However, given the fact that innovativeness has been found to be highly correlated with such variables as educational attainment, occupational status, and urbanisation (Roger and Shoemaker 1971), it appears more plausible that it is not a constant, but is, socially influenced (Hirschman 1980). Consumers in some countries may be, on average, higher in innovativeness than consumers in other countries because of national environment (Gatignon et al. 1989). A country’s culture has been identified as a key environmental characteristic underlying systematic difference in consumer behaviour (Lynn et al. 1993).

Table 2.1: Comparative profiles of the Consumer Innovator and the Late Adopter

Characteristic Innovator Imitator

Product Interest More Less

Opinion Leader More Less

Personality

Dogmatism Open-minded Closed-minded

Need for uniqueness Higher Lower

Social character Inner-directed Other-directed

Optimum stimulation level Higher Lower

Variety seeking Higher Lower

Perceived risk More Less

Venturesomeness More Less

Purchase and Consumption Traits

Brand loyalty Less More

Deal proneness More Less

Usage More Less

Media Habits

Total magazine exposure More Less

Special-interest magazines More Less

Television Less More

Social Characteristics

Social integration More Less

Social striving More Less

Group membership More Less

Demographic Characteristics

Age Younger Older

Income Higher Lower

Education More Less

Occupational status Higher Lower

Source: Schiffman and Kanuk 2004.

2.6 Culture

The Latin word “cultura” means ennoble or spiritual cultivation. It is a concept of great diversity and interest, and many researchers have tried to define it in different ways that include differing cultural aspects in the word (M�rtensson 1998). Many researchers give different definitions of culture from an extensive area; some of them are more prominent and widely applied nowadays. We review a few definitions and study one of them.

2.6.1 Definitions of Culture

Culture has been defined in many different ways. A well-known anthropological consensus definition is that culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional ideas and especially their attached values (Kluckhohn 1951).

In Edward Hall (1976)’s view, culture is primarily a communication system that can be used to create, transmit, store and process information. He defines culture as

“� man’s medium; there is not one aspect of human life that is not touched and altered by culture. This means personality, how people express themselves (including shows of emotion), the way they think, how they move, how problems are solved, how their cities are planned and laid out, how transportation systems function and are organized, as well as how economic and government systems are put together and function” (Hall 1976).

Only people who can share the same cultural background can understand the hidden meanings of the transmitted messages. People who come from another culture must try to observe and identify the underlying values and symbols to combine into this culture.

There is no area of life that is not affected by the cultural surroundings of the human being (Hall and Hall 1987). Culture is all aspects of life shared by a group of people –

“the total amount of knowledge, experiences, conceptions, values, attitudes, meanings, hierarchies, religions, relations to time, roles, relations to space, concepts of the universe, material objects and possessions acquired by a large group of people during many generations through the efforts made of both individuals and groups (M�rtensson 1998).”

2.6.2 Hofstede’s Definition of Culture

This study uses Hofstede’s definition of culture. Culture is the collective programming of the mind that distinguishes members of one group or category of people from another (Hofstede 2001). My research is based on Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions, and these dimensions conform to his definition of culture.

Earlier, Hofstede applied four dimensions to the relational analysis of cultural differences between countries: individualism versus collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance and masculinity versus femininity (Hofstede 2001). Michael Harris Bond identified another dimension, Long & Short-term Orientation, also known as “Confucian Dynamism”. Later, Hofstede included this fifth dimension to his national cultural dimensions. In spite problems inherent in Hofstede’s classification (2001) as noted by Baumgartner and Steenkamp (1996), it provides a comprehensive conceptualization for the study of consumer innovation.

2.6.3 General Cultural Differences between UK and India

Tentative conclusions may be drawn by comparing UK and India along the five dimensions according to their cultural dimension scores (Hofstede 1991, 2001). The use of Hofstede’s culture dimension index scores over the time considered in this thesis is appropriate given that culture remains relatively stable over time (Hofstede 2001, Lenartowicz and Roth 1999).

Figure 2.1: Hofstede’s cultural dimensional scores for UK and India

Source: www.christopherliechty.com

First, in the individualism or collectivism dimension varying from 91 to 6, UK (89) is higher than India (48) in individualism. The lower score indicates that India has a collectivist culture. UK appears to be more individualistic compared with India, implying a reduced tendency to form cooperative ventures in the British culture.

Second, in terms of power distance, UK (35) is lower than India (77). This dimension, varying from high (104) to low (11), is designed to measure how equally or unequally power is distributed within a society and how readily inequality is accepted. India’s score in power distance is more than twice as that of UK, which means that India is centralized while UK is relatively decentralized.

Third, UK (66) has higher value than India (56) in masculinity or femininity, whose range is from high (95) to low (5). This indicates UK is more masculine than India. This dimension represents the social manifestation of the elements of individual personality and behaviour frequently associated with human gender.

Fourth, India (40) has higher value than UK (35) for uncertainly avoidance, which varies from 112 to 8. This indicates that Indians are relatively risk-avoiding while the British are relatively risk-taking. A high value implies that the society puts greater effort into trying to reduce these risks than does a society low on this dimension. High uncertainty-avoidance Indian consumers usually lack the adventurous spirit and the sense of risks. In contrast, low uncertainty-avoidance British consumers are more likely to consider risks as natural and are willing to take the risk.

Finally, India (61) is strongly oriented towards traditions and face than UK (25) from the last dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation. This indicates the Indian culture takes a long-term view of outcomes compared to short-term orientation in the UK.

2.7 Summary

Clarity in understanding of the concept of innovation, consumer behaviour and the cultural context is necessary to appreciate the inherent relationships between them. This thesis follows the Hofstede’s conceptualization of culture and his scale of cultural dimensions. Figure 2.1 illustrates the relationship between cultural dimensions, and its influence on consumer innovation. Formally, in line with the above review, several hypotheses are proposed in Chapter 3.