1. Welcome Effects of national culture on deal proneness: Evidence from USA, Thailand and Kenya Dr. Dheeraj Sharma, IIM-A, INDIA Dr. Satyendra Singh, University of Winnipeg, CANADA Dr. Shaheen Borna, Ball State University, USA s.singh@uwinnipeg.ca www.uwinnipeg.ca/~ssingh5

2. Outline Model, Definitions, and Theory Hypotheses Development Methodology –Data collection and Sample Characteristics Analyses – Moderated Regression Results Conclusion References 2

3. The Model National Culture -Power distance -Masculinity -Individualism -Uncertainty avoidance Store Image Deal Proneness H1 H2 Control Variables -Age -Gender 3

4. Definitions National Culture Power distance, Masculinity, Individualism and Uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) Store Image Perception of store on salient attributes – service, pleasant place, shopping experience, quality merchandise (Bloemer and Ruyter, 1998) Deal Proneness Getting some thing free, or paying lower price (Lichtenstein, Netemeyer and Burton, 1995) 4

5. The Theories Social Judgment Theory Individuals view the world through the cultural lens and their belief are altered by their own perception of the world (Sherif and Hovland, 1961) Meaning Movement Theory Individuals draw socio-cultural meaning from in- store graphics, and assign the meaning to good and services (McCracken, 1986) 5

6. Hypotheses H1: ↑ PDI  ↓ DP Power relates to status, so counter to deal proneness H2: ↑ MAS  ↓ DP Like saving $, but embarrassed to use coupons H3: ↑ IND  ↑ DP Can take risks on individual basis, so use more coupons H4: ↑ UAI  ↓ DP Avoid anxiety associated with deals, so avoid coupons H5: ↑ PSI  ↑ Culture—DP Feel good; cognitive and affect component -- + attitude, so trust the deal PDI = Power distance index, MAS = Masculine, IND = individuality UAI = Uncertainty avoidance index, DP = Deal proneness, PSI = Perceived store image 6

7. Data Collection Data Collection from 300 visitors approached in each mall USA = 246 responses Thailand = 231 responses Kenya = 196 responses Mall intercept method Response rate: 75% 7

8. Sample Characteristics USAThailand Kenya Sample size (N = 673)246231196 Male896775 Female157164121 Age (male) in years443741 Age (female) in years322834 8

9. Selection of Countries USAThailand Kenya Power distance index406464 Individualism912027 Masculinity623441 Uncertainty466452 9

10. Reliability and validity – Power distance 10

11. Reliability and validity – Masculinity 11

12. Reliability and validity – Collectivism 12

13. Reliability and validity – Uncertainty avoidance 13

14. Reliability and validity – Deal Proneness 14

15. Reliability and validity – Store Image 15

17. Moderating Effects 17

18. Store Image vs. Deal Proneness 18

19. Conclusion H1: ↑ PDI  ↓ DP Partially supported: b=.32** (USA) H2: ↑ MAS  ↓ DP Partially supported: b=.29** (USA),.23* (Kenya) H3: ↑ IND  ↑ DP Partially supported: b=.31** (USA) H4: ↑ UAI  ↓ DP Supported: b=.27**(USA),.23**(Kenya),.24*(Thailand) H5: ↑ PSI  ↑ Culture—DP Supported except Thailand (b=.18, non significant) PDI = Power distance index, MAS = Masculine, IND = individuality UAI = Uncertainty avoidance index, DP = Deal proneness, PSI = Perceived store image 19

20. References Bloemer, Josee and Ko de Ruyter (1998), “On the Relationship between Store Image, Store Satisfaction and Store Loyalty,” European Journal of Marketing, 32 (5/6), 499-513. Hofstede, Geert H. (1980), Culture Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values. London: Sage Publications. Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and Scot Burton (1995), “Assessing the Domain Specificity of Deal Proneness: A Field Study,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (3), 314- 326. McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (1), 71-84. Sherif, Muzafir and Carl Hovland, (1961), Social Judgement. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 20

21. Thank you for gracing the presentation Questions?