J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci.

(2011) 39:198–215
DOI 10.1007/s11747-010-0232-3

An investigation of the cross-national determinants

of customer satisfaction
Forrest V. Morgeson III & Sunil Mithas &
Timothy L. Keiningham & Lerzan Aksoy

Received: 16 July 2010 / Accepted: 15 October 2010 / Published online: 10 November 2010
# Academy of Marketing Science 2010

Abstract Many multinational corporations have imple- traditional societies have higher levels of satisfaction than
mented cross-national satisfaction measurement programs those in secular-rational societies. Likewise, consumers in
for tracking and benchmarking the satisfaction of their self-expressive societies have higher levels of customer
customers across their various markets. These companies satisfaction than those in societies with survival values. We
measure satisfaction with the goal of maximizing customer also find that literacy rate, trade freedom, and business
loyalty and the financial benefits associated with loyalty. freedom have a positive effect on customer satisfaction
However, existing research comparing consumer satisfac- while per capita gross domestic product has a negative
tion across nations is limited, with the few existing studies effect on customer satisfaction. We discuss the implications
examining only a small number of countries or predictors of of these findings for policymakers, multinational corpora-
satisfaction, or a small group of consumers within a tions, and researchers.
particular economic sector. To expand our knowledge of
the determinants of cross-national variation in customer Keywords Customer satisfaction . International and cross-
satisfaction, we study three sets of factors: cultural, cultural marketing . Multinational corporations . Economic
socioeconomic and political-economic. We utilize a unique freedom
sample of cross-industry satisfaction data from 19 nations,
including nearly 257,000 interviews of consumers. Consis-
tent with our hypotheses, we find that consumers in Introduction

As firms globalize their operations, examining cross-

F. V. Morgeson III (*)
American Customer Satisfaction Index, national differences in consumer attitudes and behaviors
625 Avis Dr., has become a topic of considerable interest. This invigo-
Ann Arbor, MI 48108, USA rated interest is due in large part to the rising importance of
e-mail: fmorgeson@theacsi.org
foreign revenues and profits for U.S. firms and the need to
S. Mithas understand how to improve customer satisfaction and
Robert H. Smith School of Business—University of Maryland, loyalty in foreign markets. According to some estimates,
4324 Van Munching Hall, 48% of the revenues of S&P 500 companies in 2008 came
College Park, MD 20742, USA
from abroad (Vigna and Shipman 2010), and the share of
e-mail: smithas@rhsmith.umd.edu
international profits as a percentage of total profits has risen
T. L. Keiningham from 5% during the 1960s to over 25% in 2008 (Aeppel
IPSOS Loyalty, Morris Corporate Center 2, 2007). Researchers, research practitioners and corporations
1 Upper Pond Rd, Bldg D.,
are keenly interested in determining the sources and
Parsippany, NJ 07054, USA
e-mail: tim.keiningham@ipsos.com consequences of cross-national differences in consumer
attitudes and behaviors, particularly as a growing number
L. Aksoy must understand these attributes in multiple national
Schools of Business Administration, Fordham University,
contexts simultaneously. Although several studies have
1790 Broadway Avenue, 11th Floor, Room 1129,
New York, NY 10023, USA examined the role of national culture in explaining cross-
e-mail: aksoy@fordham.edu national variance in phenomena like customer satisfaction,
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 199

consumer expectations, price sensitivity, service quality, more countries/markets and results compared across these
loyalty, and so forth, they have limited generalizability markets and utilized as the basis for performance incentives,
because prior work uses only a small number of countries operational decision-making, and process improvement.
and regions, a limited set of predictor variables, and/or a The overriding goal of these programs is more than just
small group of consumers within a particular economic the creation of happier customers. Rather, cross-national
sector. satisfaction measurement is driven by the underlying belief
This paper examines a variety of national-level predictors that improving satisfaction will result in increased customer
we hypothesize will be correlated with cross-national varia- loyalty and the financial benefits typically associated with
tion in satisfaction—including cultural, socioeconomic, more loyal customers. A large body of research supports
political-economic, and sector/industry type factors. We use this belief. Research has found that customer satisfaction
a unique and very large sample of cross-national, cross- has a measurable impact on purchase intentions (Kumar
industry customer satisfaction data from 19 nations in diverse 2002; Mittal et al. 1998, 1999), customer retention
regions of the world, including nearly 257,000 interviewed (Anderson and Sullivan 1993; Ittner and Larcker 1998;
consumers. Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that Loveman 1998; Mittal and Kamakura 2001), positive word-
consumers in traditional societies have higher levels of of-mouth (Anderson 1998; Parasuraman et al. 1988, 1991),
satisfaction than those in secular-rational societies. Likewise, and financial performance (Anderson and Fornell 1994;
consumers in self-expressive societies have higher levels of Anderson et al. 1994, 1997; Anderson and Mittal 2000;
customer satisfaction than those in societies with survival Bernhardt et al. 2000; Fornell et al. 1996; Keiningham et al.
values. We also find that literacy rate, trade freedom, and 1999; Rust and Zahorik 1993). Customer satisfaction has
business freedom have a positive effect on customer satisfac- also been shown to positively impact equity prices and
tion while per capita gross domestic product has a negative valuation ratios such as Tobin’s q (Anderson et al. 2004),
effect on customer satisfaction. market-to-book ratio (Ittner and Larcker 1998), cash flow
This study contributes to the existing literature in several variability (Gruca and Rego 2005), and stock prices and
ways. First, by providing the first truly multi-national, shareholder value (Aksoy et al. 2008; Anderson et al. 2004;
multi-industry investigation of customer satisfaction, this Fornell 2007; Fornell et al. 2006, 2009a, b) and to lead to
study provides useful insights particularly as they pertain to lower volatility in stock returns and lower systematic risk
disentangling possible sources of variation in consumer (Tuli and Bharadwaj 2009). In sum, research into customer
satisfaction (or related variables) across nations. Second, satisfaction overwhelmingly supports the position that
this study should prove valuable to market research satisfaction impacts consumer intentions and business
practitioners within multinational corporstions (MNCs) outcomes typically associated with customer loyalty and
engaged in multinational customer satisfaction measure- thus supports the implementation of these cross-market,
ment programs, as increasingly these researchers are tasked cross-national satisfaction measurement programs.
with deciphering differences in satisfaction across many For these multinational corporations, however, operation-
different nations and regions, and making vital decisions alizing satisfaction efforts globally to secure customer loyalty
based on this information. Finally, this study provides across a variety of often very different markets presents
insight and guidance to MNCs in their international growth distinct challenges. Academic researchers and research
strategies, and to policymakers within nations seeking practitioners have long recognized that consumers from
economic growth through improved customer satisfaction. different cultures and countries vary in their response styles
in surveys (i.e., in how they use rating scales). As a result,
researchers have sought ways to effectively equate responses
Cross-national customer satisfaction from various cultures to allow for meaningful comparisons
(e.g., Iacobucci et al. 2003; Smith and Reynolds 2001;
Firms are increasingly focused on international markets to Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). The underlying assump-
improve sales and profitability (Ghemawat 2007). Crossing tion in these calibrations, particularly as they relate to
national boundaries, however, makes it more difficult for satisfaction, is that different rating levels between cultures
managers to deliver consistent service, to meet customers’ can correspond to the same actual levels of satisfaction, and
unique needs, and to judge the performance of disparate thus to potentially very different conclusions, recommenda-
operations in successfully satisfying customer needs and tions, and operational implications.
wants. As a result, customer satisfaction measurement has Yet for the researcher or practitioner exploring cross-
become an international phenomenon. It is common today national consumer satisfaction, the issue is much more
for multinational corporations to implement satisfaction complex than just determining culturally-invariant ratings
measurement programs, with data collected using standard- scale levels that allow managers to compare the perfor-
ized instruments in multiple languages across a dozen or mance of various business units. While culture has been
200 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

found to complicate interpretation of differences in survey Hypotheses

data, we would also expect a variety of national-level
differences to have a substantial effect on a phenomenon In what follows, we present six hypotheses in three
such as consumer satisfaction. Indeed, a range of cross- categories that we argue should help explain cross-
national differences—including culture, but also political, national variance in customer satisfaction: cultural, socio-
economic, and socio-economic factors—are likely to economic, and political-economic factors.
influence both how consumers perceive and respond to
their consumption experience and the level of satisfaction The case for cultural differences
delivered by an economy. For example, are consumers
within more competitive, freer market economies gener- For most of the decisions we make, it is impossible to
ally more or less satisfied? Do national-level variations separate our choices from the culture through which we
in consumer wealth or literacy impact consumer satis- filter and interpret information, the symbols and values that
faction? What role, if any, do political institutions or lend meaning to our lives. Individuals in every society
political-economic policy play in driving satisfaction? Do make decisions and pursue life plans against the backdrop
these differences impact how researchers and managers of a complex network of cultural relationships influencing
should interpret cross-national/cross-cultural satisfaction these decisions. Hofstede defines culture as “the collective
results? Might these differences also offer insight into the programming of the mind which distinguishes the members
markets multinational corporations should focus on (or of one group or category of people from those of another”
avoid) in their international expansion efforts, due to (1994, p. 4). Furthermore, despite heterogeneity among
differential “thresholds of satisfaction” across nations? individuals, Sivakumar and Nakata (2001, p. 559) observe
And perhaps most importantly, could these results even that “within any nation-state there is a modal set of values.
provide evidence of the importance of customer satisfac- Other values may co-exist, but one set is more common and
tion to policymakers within nations as they set essential thus broadly descriptive of the society as whole. This value
social, political and economic policy? set constitutes a country’s ‘national culture’.”
Given the importance of these and related questions to Given the pervasive influence of national culture on how
policymakers, the growing number of enterprises operat- individuals perceive and interact with their environment,
ing across countries, and the expanding cohort of this “collective programming” is also likely to impact
researchers working in this area, one would expect a individual members of society in their role as consumers. A
significant body of literature on cross-national consumer growing body of research has confirmed the importance of
satisfaction to have emerged. Yet while a few studies culture to cross-national marketing, discovering a link
have explored these and related topics, such as cross- between it and a range of relevant consumer intentions
national service quality, complaint behavior, customer and behaviors. For example, prior research suggests a link
loyalty, etc. (Brady and Robertson 2001; Donthu and Yoo between culture and customer satisfaction (Khan et al.
1998; Furrer et al. 2000; Khan et al. 2009; Lam 2007; Liu 2009), consumer expectations (Donthu and Yoo 1998;
and McClure 2001; Malai and Speece 2005; Straughan Tsikriktsis 2002), sensitivity to prices (Ackerman and Tellis
and Albers-Miller 2001; Ueltschy and Krampf 2001), the 2001), consumer tipping behavior (Lynn et al. 1993),
extant literature remains quite limited. Most existing perceptions of service quality (Furrer et al. 2000; Mattila
studies analyze survey data from only two to four 1999), the relationship between price and perceived quality
countries (and only one or two regions of the world), (Jo and Sarigollu 2007) and between perceived service
include data on only a single industry or economic sector, quality and satisfaction (Reimann et al. 2008), complaint
and/or focus exclusively on the role of culture (and not behavior (Liu and McClure 2001), brand loyalty intention
other potentially important factors) in explaining cross- (Lam 2007), and loyalty to domestic (versus foreign)
national differences in satisfaction. Therefore, even at retailers (Straughan and Albers-Miller 2001). Given these
best, the ability of researchers and managers to generalize and related findings, there is a strong likelihood national
from these findings is limited. Against this backdrop, our culture will also help explain cross-national variance in
goal in this paper is to study the influence of several consumer satisfaction.
national-level factors on cross-national customer satisfac- Most cross-cultural studies in the marketing discipline
tion in 19 countries—Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Colom- have employed Hofstede’s (1983) five dimensions of
bia, Czech Republic, Hong Kong, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, culture to test its importance. However, given some of the
Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, limitations of the Hofstede dimensions, and particularly the
Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United age of the data and the lack of coverage of certain countries
States—using a sample of consumer survey data from (including four countries in our sample), we adopt an
national satisfaction indices in each of these countries. alternative set of cultural indicators. Following Inglehart
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 201

and Baker, we identify two broad, dichotomous measures other hand, secular-rational societies tend to produce
of national-cultural values, multidimensional indicators that individuals who are less constrained by the traditional
have been linked empirically to modernization (defined structures of authority (religious, familial or political) that
broadly) within nations: traditional vs. secular-rational both shape and direct judgment and opinion. While these
values, and survival vs. self-expression values (Inglehart values undoubtedly impact political institutions within
1997; Inglehart and Baker 2000, p. 25).1 Inglehart and these societies, they should also impact economic relation-
Baker define the traditional vs. secular-rational cultural ships and consumer perceptions of economic institutions,
values dichotomy as follows: and thus both actual consumer experiences and the way in
which consumers recall these experiences. Therefore, we
Yet although the people of traditional societies have
suggest that as societies move away from traditional and
high levels of national pride, favor more respect for
toward secular-rational values, individual consumers will
authority, take protectionist attitudes toward foreign
be more willing to reject authority, question institutions,
trade, and feel that environmental problems can be
and thus be more able (and willing) to both form
solved without international agreements, they accept
independent critical judgments about and express lower
national authority passively… They emphasize social
satisfaction with a consumption experience. Thus,
conformity rather than individualistic striving, favor
consensus rather than open political conflict, support H1: Consumers in more secular-rational societies will
deference to authority, and have high levels of express lower satisfaction with the goods and services
national pride and a nationalistic outlook. Societies they have experienced.
with secular-rational values have the opposite prefer-
On the other hand, in self-expressive, post-industrial
ences on all of these topics.
societies, individuals take physical and economic security
Furthermore, Inglehart and Baker define the survival vs. for granted (i.e., lose their survival values). The greater
self-expression values dichotomy in this way (Inglehart and levels of interpersonal trust that have developed in these
Baker 2000, p. 28): societies should extend beyond personal relationships to
other human interactions, including consumer interactions.
Societies that emphasize survival values show rela-
Stronger perceptions of health and subjective well-being in
tively low levels of subjective well-being, report
self-expressive societies should also correlate to greater
relatively poor health, are low on interpersonal trust,
happiness and satisfaction with a range of life experiences
relatively intolerant of outgroups, are low on support
for these individuals. For these reasons, we suggest that as
for gender equality, emphasize materialist values,
societies move away from survival and toward self-
have relatively high levels of faith in science and
expressive values, satisfaction with consumption experien-
technology, are relatively low on environmental
ces will increase. Therefore,
activism, and relatively favorable to authoritarian
government. Societies high on self-expression values H2: Consumers in more self-expressive societies will
tend to have the opposite preferences on these topics. express greater satisfaction with the goods and
services they have experienced.
A few aspects of Inglehart and Baker’s formulation of
national-cultural values strike us as significant, and point to
potential relationships between these values and consumer The case for socioeconomic differences
satisfaction. Beginning with the traditional vs. secular-
rational values dichotomy, individuals in traditional socie- Marketing research at the individual-consumer level has
ties strive for consensus and the minimization of conflict, demonstrated a relationship between the characteristics of
and value conformity over individuality. Passivity and consumers and their attitudes and behaviors. Marketing
deference to authority is the norm in traditional societies, practitioners have long understood that different groups of
and open conflict or disagreement is frowned upon. On the customers are not the same (Claycamp and Massy 1968),
leading to the development of customer segmentation
1
models and differentiated customer relationship manage-
It is worth noting that the Baker-Inglehart cultural dimensions are
ment strategies within many companies. Moreover, not only
strongly correlated to the Hofstede dimensions (IDV, UAI, PDI and
MAS) for the countries in our study (where data exists for both sets of do different groups of consumers expect different attributes
dimensions). Regressing the traditional vs. secular-rational values from a product or service, in terms of the marketing mix,
dimension on these four predictors produces a multiple correlation of but some customers are harder to satisfy than others
r=0.57, with PDI having the strongest influence. Likewise, regressing
(Anderson et al. 2008; Bryant and Cha 1996; Mittal and
the survival vs. self-expression values dimension on these four
predictors produces a multiple correlation of r=0.91, with PDI and Kamakura 2001). Given the well-established link between
IDV having roughly equal influence. consumer characteristics and satisfaction at the individual
202 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

level, it is reasonable to assume that these relationships provision of (human) services and the services sector to
apply at a higher level of aggregation as well, at the both developed and developing economies, and the impor-
national level. More specifically, we suggest that, similar to tance of a well-trained, literate labor pool across nearly
findings at the individual-consumer level, two national- every economic sector, increased literacy should result in
level socioeconomic indicators—wealth and literacy—are stronger consumer satisfaction. Therefore,
likely to be related to cross-national variation in satisfaction
H4: Consumers in societies with higher literacy rates will
(Anderson et al. 2008; Bryant and Cha 1996; Mittal and
express greater satisfaction with the goods and
Kamakura 2001).
services they have experienced.
Economic prosperity within a nation—measured by a
traditional indicator such as per capita gross domestic
product (GDP)—could be assumed to be positively related The case for political-economic differences
to consumer satisfaction. Research at the consumer level
once made this assumption as well, suggesting that Differences between nations extend beyond cultural and
wealthier consumers should be more satisfied consumers socioeconomic factors, of course. In particular, nations
(Anderson et al. 2008; Bryant and Cha 1996; Mittal and often differ greatly in their political history and culture,
Kamakura 2001). On this line of reasoning, it was political institutions, and the resultant political-economic
postulated that because more prosperous consumers should policies in ways that can dramatically impact a market-
have a greater ability to purchase the goods capable of place. These factors—generally referred to as components
satisfying them, and because the more expensive goods of a country’s economic freedom—directly impact not only
purchased by higher income consumers are typically of the ability of international firms to enter a market, but also
higher quality, these consumers should be more satisfied. the incentives a firm has to satisfy its customers in that
However, research has consistently shown that as income market (Thompson 2004). Such factors also impact the
increases, consumers in fact tend to become more critical of options presented to consumers in terms of competitive
the goods they consume and less satisfied, most likely as a alternatives, which in turn influence how customers can
consequence of the higher standards and more discerning manifest their brand/firm loyalty.
nature of these consumers (Anderson et al. 2008; Bryant The potential link between the economic freedom or
and Cha 1996). Following from these findings and competitiveness of a nation and the satisfaction of its
extrapolating to the national level, we suggest that: consumers has long been noted. The most basic precepts of
free market economics, going back at least to Adam Smith,
H3: Consumers in societies with higher per capita gross
suggest that consumers should experience greater utility (or
domestic product will express lower satisfaction with
satisfaction) from goods consumed within a free market
the goods and services they have experienced.
economy. Because competition among suppliers to attract
On the other hand, we suggest that a higher literacy rate and win loyal customers results in higher quality products
within a nation should lead to greater satisfaction among and services, lower prices, and so forth, competition should
consumers. In the first instance, consumers with increased be positively related to consumer satisfaction. More
access to information conferred by literacy should be able recently, research by Johnson et al. (2002) argues that
to conduct more effective research and make better firms in countries with higher levels of economic freedom
decisions about which goods to consume (across all will have a greater motivation to satisfy their customers.
economic sectors), and thus should be more satisfied with They argue that this is driven in large part by the greater
the goods finally selected and consumed. Also, literate ability and economic incentive of entrepreneurial ventures
consumers should, for instance, be better able to function in to be established and flourish through an increased focus on
the rapidly growing number of “self-service technology” better satisfying customer needs. Therefore, we would
(SST) environments marking both developed and develop- expect that greater economic freedom would positively
ing countries. Literate consumers are likely to be, in short, impact satisfaction within a nation. The logic here is
“better” consumers, more capable of self-gratification straightforward—less economic freedom means less choice
through educated choices and greater competence. More- for consumers.
over, and perhaps most vitally, a higher national literacy While economic freedom is a complex, multi-dimensional
rate should lead to greater customer satisfaction through a concept, we suggest that two of its dimensions—the openness
higher-quality labor force generated by increased literacy. of a market to foreign trade and international commerce, and
The link between literacy and a high-quality, competitive the openness of a market to internal business development—
workforce has been previously noted (Berryman 1994), and should be relevant vis-à-vis customer satisfaction. Both of
this relationship is particularly important in terms of these types of economic freedom should increase competition
customer satisfaction. That is, given the centrality of the and broaden the number, quality and pricing of competitive
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 203

alternatives in a manner beneficial to the consumers (and their ically important companies, industries and economic
satisfaction) within these nations. Therefore, with regard to sectors. In each nation, the administered questionnaire
economic freedom we suggest the following hypotheses: consists of a core set of questions on both the antecedents
and outcomes of customer satisfaction, including customer
H5: Consumers in societies with fewer barriers to free
expectations, perceptions of quality and value, complaint
trade and international commerce will express greater
behavior, and customer loyalty. To maximize comparability
satisfaction with the goods and services they have
and study equivalence across nations, several steps were
experienced.
taken (Smith and Reynolds 2001). First, the administered
H6: Consumers in societies with fewer barriers to internal
questionnaire was kept as homogenous as possible at all levels
business development will express greater satisfaction
of measurement to maximize comparability across companies,
with the goods they have experienced.
industries and economic sectors. The groups administering
data collection in each country followed the same set of
methods, and therefore interviewing parameters, survey
Data and measures question wording, response scales, and so forth were kept as
identical as possible, or altered where culturally appropriate
Data collection and the customer satisfaction variable and necessary, across the 19 countries. To establish temporal
equivalence, the sample includes data collected during the
To test the hypotheses outlined above, we analyze a cross- 2007 calendar year for all nations.
national sample of consumer satisfaction survey data. The Furthermore, prior to data collection, the questionnaires
dataset consists of interviews with customers in 19 nations were translated into the appropriate local language(s), back-
—Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Colombia, Czech Republic, translated, and checked for consistency. Interviewing was
Hong Kong, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, done using face-to-face, online, and computer-assisted
Russia, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, the telephone interviewing (CATI) techniques, depending on
United Kingdom, and the United States. All of the data local necessities and standard market research practices in
were collected for analysis by research groups implement- each country. Appropriate steps were taken in each country
ing national customer satisfaction indices employing a to insure a random sample drawn from as representative a
common methodology (to the extent possible) and a cross-section of the population as possible, although
common customer satisfaction model. This model was first “representativeness” in the context of these studies denotes
implemented in 1989 in Sweden with the Swedish something different for each measured industry. Each
Customer Satisfaction Barometer (SCSB) and later applied potential respondent was screened prior to interviewing to
in the United States by the American Customer Satisfaction determine eligibility to participate, and the respondent was
Index (ACSI) and across Europe by the Extended Perfor- deemed eligible if he/she had personally purchased and
mance Satisfaction Index (EPSI Rating) (Bryant et al. 2008; consumed the particular type of product or service of
Eklöf and Selivanova 2008; Fornell 1992; Fornell et al. interest within a defined timeframe (e.g., “shopped at a
1996). Through partnerships with the ACSI, the same department store in the last 6 months”). This screening
model is also being applied in a variety of additional method ensures to some extent that respondents have had
nations, providing the broad and diverse dataset available actual and relatively recent experience with the product or
for analysis.2 service being measured and thus the ability to report their
For each of these national satisfaction indices, interviews satisfaction with the experience.
of customers were conducted by local market research firms Once data collection was complete, analysis of the
to measure consumer experiences with a range of econom- data was initially conducted using the statistical method-
ology first developed for the SCSB and ACSI (Fornell
1992; Fornell et al. 1996). This methodology employs a
2
Data for the United States was made available by the American multiple-indicator latent variable approach for producing
Customer Satisfaction Index. Data for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, scores for satisfaction and the other measured latent
Czech Republic, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Russia, Sweden, variables. A form of partial least squares (PLS) structural
and Ukraine was made available by EPSI Rating. Data for the other
equation modeling is used to estimate the measurement and
seven nations was made available by organizations partnered with the
ACSI and administering projects in their own countries: in Turkey, the structural models. While the survey questions are asked
Turkish Customer Satisfaction Index (TMME); in Colombia, the during interviewing on a 1–10 scale, the latent constructs
Customer Index Value (CIV); in the United Kingdom, the National are transformed to 0–100 indices during analysis. The
Customer Satisfaction Index-UK (NCSI-UK); and in Singapore, the
customer satisfaction latent construct, the variable of
Customer Satisfaction Index of Singapore (CSISG). Data for Hong
Kong, Japan and Thailand was provided by CSISG as part of a interest for this study, is operationalized using three survey
benchmarking study. questions: overall (cumulative) consumption satisfaction,
204 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

the confirmation/disconfirmation of prior expectations, and We analyze data at this level of aggregation because it both
comparison to an ideal (Bryant et al. 2008; Fornell et al. maximizes the sample available for analysis (i.e., a single
1996).3 company does not need to operate or have its satisfaction
All of the latent constructs produced through this modeling measured in each country for that company or industry to be
procedure have been shown to have high reliability and included in our analysis), and because this approach provides
validity, to accurately measure and reflect the “true” underly- a set of results most likely to minimize bias and error in the
ing phenomenon of consumer satisfaction (Fornell et al. sample. That is, this type of aggregate-level analysis of
1996). Most importantly, the satisfaction latent variable has satisfaction data has been advocated precisely on the grounds
been empirically linked to a variety of external measures of that it “should increase the stability and resulting comparabil-
corporate and financial performance, providing the most ity of satisfaction measures, as [through aggregation] individ-
important evidence of validity (Aksoy et al. 2008; Anderson ual differences become self-canceling random factors”
et al. 2004; Fornell et al. 2006, 2009a, b; Gruca and Rego (Johnson et al. 2002, p. 751).
2005; Tuli and Bharadwaj 2009). While an identical assortment of industries was not
Using these methods, latent satisfaction index scores measured in each country—due to both differential project
(unweighted mean scores from the case-level data) were objectives for the indices in each nation, and to different
produced in each country for each measured company. economic circumstances across the national economies (i.e.,
However, rather than analyzing either case-level or some industries and sectors are not as economically
company-level satisfaction scores, the unit of analysis in important in some nations)—the economic sectors included
our study will be industry-level index scores for all in the final sample are reasonably comparable (see Table 1
measured industries across all nations. Industry-level scores below). The total sample in terms of interviewed consumers
are produced in each country by weighting the company is 256,875 across the 19 nations, but because we are
satisfaction scores by market share (i.e., company sales analyzing industry-level satisfaction scores, our total sam-
relative to total industry sales), and then aggregating these ple is N=272. Table 1 provides the frequencies of industries
results to produce weighted industry satisfaction scores. included in the sample for each country, coded by NAICS
Mathematically, these industry index scores are calculated sector (http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/).
as:
Cultural and socioeconomic variables
X
F
Sfit Ifit
Index for Industry i at time t ¼ Iit ¼ PF ð1Þ
f f Sfit For our cultural variables, we follow Inglehart and Baker’s
traditional vs. secular-rational and survival vs. self-
where expressive conceptualization of culture, discussed above,
and append these variables to our sample. The Inglehart and
Sfist ¼ Sales by firm f ; industry i; sector s at time t Baker data is publicly available and was accessed through
Ifist ¼ Index for firm f ; industry i; sector s at time t the “World Values Survey” (WVS) website (http://www.
worldvaluessurvey.org/), the source of the survey data
Inglehart and Baker use to compute their multidimensional
constructs. We use data from the most recently available
3
There is a great deal of debate among social scientists regarding the WVS wave for each country. Data for 2006 (the most recent
empirical modeling of data across cultures, particularly as to whether
wave) were available for nearly all of the countries in our
general conclusions can be derived from the analysis of multiple
cultures. The emic view holds that “attitudinal or behavioral sample, but where unavailable (in the Czech Republic,
phenomena are expressed in a unique way in each culture” (Usnier Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Singapore) we
1996, p. 142), and therefore models should be fitted separately by used data from the earlier 2000 WVS wave.
culture, with little comparison between cultures (Hofstede et al. 1993).
The data for both of these cultural indicators reflect
On the other hand, the etic view is concerned with identifying
universal constructs across cultures, and therefore cross-cultural national-level factor loadings from a case-level principal
analysis is justified. Iacobucci et al. (2003, p. 9) write, “Both component factor analysis performed by Inglehart and
philosophies are defensible on scientific grounds—generalization, Baker (2000). Each indicator includes five survey items.
abstraction, and parsimony support the etic [philosophy].” Specifical-
The resultant factor loadings reflect “low to high” results
ly, with regard to cross-cultural satisfaction research, we believe the
etic philosophy appropriate given the universal and generic nature of for each country, from traditional (low) to secular-rational
satisfaction. To quote Zeithaml et al. (2006, p. 170), “Customer (high), and from survival (low) to self-expression (high)
satisfaction is the most widely used perceptual metric because it is values. Figure 1 illustrates the scores on both of these
generic and can be universally gauged for all products and services
cultural indicators for each country in our sample.
(including nonprofit and public services). Even without a precise
definition of the term, customer satisfaction is clearly understood by The socioeconomic variables in our study—per capita
respondents, and its meaning is easy to communicate to managers.” gross domestic product and literacy rate—were accessed
Table 1 Industry customer satisfaction data by NAICS sector

Country NAICS sectors

Utilities Transportation Information Health care Accommodation Educational Manufacturing Manufacturing Public Retail trade Finance Total
and warehousing and social and food services (nondurable goods) (durable goods) administration and insurance
assistance services

United States 1 3 12 1 3 0 8 5 4 5 4 46
Singapore 0 6 2 4 5 3 0 1 0 9 1 31
Hong Kong 0 2 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 6 1 18
Japan 0 2 2 2 4 2 0 0 0 5 1 18
Thailand 0 3 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 5 1 18
Colombia 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 7
Turkey 0 2 1 1 1 1 14 5 4 4 4 37
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

United Kingdom 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 7
Denmark 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 9
Finland 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 11
Norway 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7
Sweden 1 5 3 3 0 4 0 0 2 5 5 28
Iceland 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 9
Czech Republic 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 6
Russia 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
Ukraine 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5
Estonia 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Latvia 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Lithuania 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4
Total 4 28 47 22 21 15 22 13 11 51 38 272
205
206 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

from a widely-used source for this type of cross-national (concerning opening a business, closing a business, obtain-
data, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact- ing licenses, etc.) that impact entrepreneurship and impede
book (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- internal private sector growth. This variable is also scored
factbook/). For GDP, we use purchasing power parity- on a 0–100 scale, with a higher score indicating fewer
adjusted per capita GDP expressed in thousands of U.S. government regulations and greater business freedom.
dollars, with 2007 results for this data (rather than the more Figure 2 illustrates the scores on both of these economic
recent 2008 or 2009 data) appended to the sample to match freedom indicators for each country in our sample.
the year the customer satisfaction data was collected. The
same data source was used for the literacy rate variable Sector control variables
(defined as the percentage of individuals over 15 years of
age capable of reading and writing), although the most Finally, we include in our sample (and below in our
recent year of reporting for this data varied across the 19 analysis) a group of sector-level control variables, dummy
countries in our sample (from 2000 to 2005). variables corresponding to the sector frequencies in each
country shown in Table 1. We add these controls for two
Political economy variables reasons. First, several studies have demonstrated a relation-
ship between the industry from which a product or service
Several independent sources of information exist to comes and the resultant level of customer satisfaction, both
assist corporations and managers in determining inter- within and across nations (Anderson 1994; Fornell and
national opportunities and risks. One of the most widely Robinson 1986; Fornell et al. 1996, 2005; Johnson and
used measures of economic freedom is the Index of Fornell 1991; Johnson et al. 2002). The amount of
Economic Freedom produced by the Heritage Founda- competition within an industry (i.e., monopolistic vs. free
tion (http://www.heritage.org/Index/). For this index, markets) and the quantity of human intervention required in
economic freedom is measured as a function of ten a consumption experience (i.e., services vs. tangible goods)
interrelated components: Trade Freedom, Business Free- have been suggested as likely explanations for cross-
dom, Financial Freedom, Fiscal Freedom, Government industry variation in customer satisfaction (Fornell and
Size, Monetary Freedom, Investment Freedom, Property Robinson 1986; Johnson and Fornell 1991). Nevertheless,
Rights, Freedom from Corruption, and Labor Freedom. this phenomenon has been pervasive enough, and its effects
Two of these measures of economic freedom—trade and potentially serious enough, to warrant the inclusion of
business freedom—most closely match the hypotheses we controls in any cross-industry investigation of customer
present above. satisfaction.
In the Heritage dataset, Trade Freedom is defined as an Second, as mentioned earlier and as Table 1 demon-
absence of obstacles to international commerce (such as strates, our sample of customer satisfaction data by industry
tariffs and non-tariff barriers), and is scaled from 0–100, and sector is not invariant across country. That is, not all
with a higher score on the scale indicative of a market more industries or sectors are measured in each country in our
open to free trade and international commerce. Business sample, and in some cases measurement was performed for
Freedom is defined as an absence of regulations several industries within a sector in one country, and none
at all in another. Without controlling for these sampling

2.5
Traditional vs. Secular-Rational Values

Japan Sweden 100.0

2.0
Iceland Finland Singapore
1.5 Estonia Hong Kong Czech Republic Norway 95.0
Denmark Sweden Denmark
United Kingdom
1.0 Lithuania Finland
Latvia 90.0 Japan Norway
Iceland United States
HongKong
Business Freedom

0.5 Ukraine
Russia 85.0
0.0 United Kingdom Lithuania
Singapore 80.0 Estonia
-0.5 United States
Thailand
-1.0 75.0 Latvia
Turkey
Thailand
-1.5 Colombia
Colombia 70.0
-2.0 Turkey
65.0
-2.5 Russia Czech Republic
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
60.0
Survival vs. Self-Expressive Values 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0
Trade Freedom
Fig. 1 Traditional vs. secular-rational and survival vs. self-expressive
values by nation Fig. 2 Heritage trade freedom and business freedom values by nation
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 207

differences, it would be difficult to differentiate what is real sents the per capita purchasing power parity-adjusted gross
cross-national variance in satisfaction from the impact of domestic product variable; LIT represents the literacy rate
the industries included for measurement in each country. variable; TRADE and BUS represent the trade freedom and
Descriptive statistics for all variables are provided in business freedom variables, respectively; UTILS… FIN the
Table 2. Correlations among the variables (excluding the ten NAICS sector dummy variables (abbreviated, with the
dummy variables) are provided in Table 3. Health Care sector serving as the reference category); and ε
the error term. Results from this model are presented in
Table 4.
Statistical methods and models In addition to this primary model, we estimate two further
models. Because our total sample in terms of measured
To test our hypotheses and the effects of these national- industries is relatively small and therefore more susceptible
level variables on cross-national customer satisfaction, (potentially) to fluctuations in the parameter estimates, we
we estimate several regression models. While alternative estimate these two equations as a form of sensitivity analysis
modeling techniques were considered, the limitations of and a test of model robustness (Chatterjee and Hadi 1988). In
the existing literature and the lack of a strong theoretical these two models, we include the same six predictors
rationale pointing to alternative methods (such as discussed above, but truncate our sample and include
principal component path analysis, structural equation observations from only two NAICS sectors (one in each
modeling, nonlinear estimation, and so forth) suggests model) where at least some data is available for each nation—
linear modeling.4 Thus, we specify standard cross- the Finance and Insurance sector, and the Information sector.
sectional models of the form: Results from these two models should provide insight into the
stability of the estimates under varying model specifications.
Yi ¼ Xi b þ "i ; ð2Þ
Results from these two models are provided in Tables 6 and
where Y represents the response variable; X represents a 7. Results for all three models are discussed in the next
vector of determinants of the response variable; βs are the section.
parameters to be estimated; and ε is the error term We offer one final test of the robustness of the estimates in
associated with each observation i. our models using bootstrapping. Because we have limited
Our first equation includes the satisfaction data for all knowledge about the cross-national population distribution of
measured industries across all 19 nations (i.e., the full customer satisfaction, and because our sample is relatively
sample of N=272 industries). This model tests the six
hypotheses presented above and includes all of the
predictor variables, as well as ten dummy variables as Table 2 Descriptive statistics for model variables
controls corresponding to each NAICS sector from Table 1.
N Min Max Mean SD
This model thus takes the form:
Customer satisfaction 272 47.90 85.70 71.216 6.464
Y CSI ¼ a þ bTRAD þ bSURV þ bGDP þ bLIT þ bTRADE
Traditional vs. Secular rational 272 −1.87 1.96 0.184 1.127
þ bBUS þ g UTILS þ . . . þ g FIN þ "; ð3Þ Survival vs. Self-expression 272 −1.42 2.35 0.597 1.176
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 272 62.60 95.00 84.154 5.864
where Y represents the industry-level customer satisfaction
Heritage business freedom 272 43.60 96.70 85.074 12.485
response variable; TRAD represents the traditional vs. (2007)
secular-rational cultural variable; SURV represents the Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) 272 7.10 58.00 33.462 15.641
survival vs. self expression cultural variable; GDP repre- Literacy rate (2007) 272 87.40 100.00 95.781 4.420
Utilities dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.015 0.121
Transportation dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.103 0.304
4 Information dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.173 0.379
We also considered the use of hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)
for our analysis. HLM extends the traditional multiple linear Health care dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.081 0.273
regression model to multi-level data, where effects for different
Accommodation dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.077 0.267
groups or clusters within the sample (such as nation-states, to use a
relevant example from our data) are thought to exhibit unique Education dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.055 0.229
characteristics (West et al. 2007). However, because the purpose of Nondurable dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.081 0.273
HLM is to test and compare random slope variances at the cluster Durable dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.048 0.214
level, and because a few of the nation-states in our sample provide
Public dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.040 0.197
only a few observations (once data is aggregated to the sector level),
such an approach would produce results with limited power and Retail dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.188 0.391
reliability (Snijders 2005). For this reason, we deemed OLS to be the Finance dummy 272 0.00 1.00 0.140 0.347
more appropriate method.
208 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

Table 3 Correlations for model variables (excluding dummy variables)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

1. Customer satisfaction – – – – – –
2. Traditional vs. Secular rational −0.478** – – – – –
3. Survival vs. Self-expression 0.011 0.156** – – – –
4. Trade freedom (2007) −0.154* 0.129* 0.015 – – –
5. Business freedom (2007) −0.273** 0.302** 0.503** 0.552** – –
6. Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.284** 0.209** 0.449** 0.728** 0.864** –
7. Literacy rate (2007) −0.198** 0.569** 0.565** 0.151* 0.475** 0.484**

**p<0.01; *p<0.05

small (overall, but especially the sub-samples used in the The second and third methods are based on a stratified
sensitivity analyses) and thus more susceptible to influential bootstrapping approach. The stratified bootstrapping method
observations that could skew the analysis, bootstrapping will draws randomly with replacement from identified sub-groups
help gauge the sensitivity of our estimates to sampling within a sample. On this method, each case has a 1/n
variations (Chernick 2008; Efron and Tibshirani 1986). For probability of selection (with n = to the sample size of each
our full model, we re-estimate the standard errors of our sub-group), but each sub-group is represented by exactly n
parameters using three bootstrap procedures. The first cases in each bootstrap sample, thus preserving the propor-
method is a random case resample bootstrap, with 500 tion of each sub-group in every bootstrapped sample. Using
samples (B=500) drawn with replacement from among the this procedure, we stratify by both the 19 countries and the
full sample of N=272 (with each case/row having a 1/N eleven NAICS sectors (at B=500) in the sample. Unlike the
probability of selection), and our parameter standard errors random case resample bootstrap, these two stratified boot-
recalculated using these bootstrap samples. strapping methods will detect the sensitivity of our models to

Table 4 Cross-national satisfaction linear model (including all countries and sectors)

Unstandardized estimate Standard error t

Constant −8.025 12.390 −0.648

Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.049*** 0.306 −9.975
Survival vs. Self-expression 0.858** 0.326 2.630
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.307*** 0.046 −6.723
Literacy rate (2007) 0.546*** 0.097 5.617
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.343*** 0.076 4.480
Heritage business freedom (2007) 0.107* 0.044 2.418
Utilities dummy −4.884* 2.278 −2.144
Transportation dummy −3.598** 1.185 −3.036
Information dummy −2.620* 1.100 −2.381
Accommodation dummy −0.928 1.272 −0.729
Education dummy −0.812 1.395 −0.582
Nondurable dummy 8.427*** 1.311 6.427
Durable dummy 3.045* 1.489 2.045
Public dummy −8.426*** 1.557 −5.412
Retail dummy −0.757 1.060 −0.714
Finance dummy 0.154 1.134 0.136
F-statistic 25.240***
R2 0.613
Adjusted R2 0.589

N=272 measured industries (across all 19 countries)

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 209

sampling idiosyncrasies at the country or industry levels, in the directions hypothesized. As suggested, as average per
respectively, potential problems caused by the within- capita GDP (purchasing power parity adjusted [PPP-
country sampling variance noted earlier. adjusted]) within a nation increases, consumers become
Results from these bootstrap procedures for all three less satisfied (coefficient=−0.307, p<0.001). Further, con-
models, comparing the original (or “sample”) standard sumers in nations with higher literacy rates tend to
errors to the standard errors produced by each resampling experience greater customer satisfaction (coefficient=
method, along with the significance of the parameter for 0.546, p<0.001).
each standard error, are shown in Tables 7 and 8. Finally, the model shows a significant relationship
between political-economic factors (trade and business
freedom) and customer satisfaction, as suggested by H5
Results and H6. As predicted, consumers in nations with fewer
barriers to trade experience and report stronger customer
The primary purpose of our study is to examine determi- satisfaction (coefficient=0.343, p<0.001). Moreover, con-
nants of cross-national customer satisfaction variance. As sumers in nations with fewer barriers to business freedom
such, the first, full model results provided in Table 4, a generally experience and report higher customer satisfac-
model that includes satisfaction data for all of the industries tion (coefficient=0.107, p<0.05). Therefore, our findings
in all 19 countries in our sample, all six of our substantive suggest that economic freedom does indeed impact cross-
predictor variables, and the full cohort of controls for national consumer satisfaction, and both H5 and H6 are
sector/industry effects, offers the most direct test of our fully supported.
hypotheses. This model is statistically significant, with an Finally, the results indicate sector-level differences in
F-value of 25.240 (p<0.001). The model R2 is 0.613, with customer satisfaction apply across national boundaries. Six
an adjusted-R2 of 0.589. The model appears to fit the data of the dummy variables—for the Utilities (−), Transporta-
well, and these variables explain a sizable proportion of the tion (−), Information (−), Nondurable goods (+), Durable
variance in customer satisfaction across nations. The goods (+), and Public administration (−) sectors—are
variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics indicate some significant.5
multicollinearity among the substantive predictors, with We conducted additional analyses (see Tables 5 and 6) to
the highest VIF value for per capita GDP (8.054) the most explore differences across distinct industries and sectors. In
troubling. This VIF value indicates a significant increase in particular, we explored the extent to which our results hold
the size of the standard error (roughly 2.8 times) for the per in information intensive industries such as Finance and
capita GDP estimate. Nevertheless, because all of the Insurance and Information sectors, as these industries are
substantive predictors are significant even with the exis- likely to offer relatively similar product and service
tence of this multicollinearity (and we therefore run little offerings across national boundaries. Table 5 shows results
risk of committing a type II error), and because none of the for a model with the same six predictor variables (excluding
VIF values for the substantive predictors exceed a value of the dummy variables) across all 19 countries, but with the
10 (the standard upper-bound value for declaring multi- sample truncated by industry to include only industries in
collinearity unacceptably high) (Hair et al. 1992), we leave the Finance and Insurance sector (a sample of N=38
our model unchanged. All six of the national-level predictor industries). This model is statistically significant, with an
variables in the model (i.e. not including the dummy/ F-value of 6.558 (p<0.001). The model R2 is 0.559, with
control variables) are significant. an adjusted-R2 of 0.474, reasonably similar to the full
We find support for H1 and H2, suggesting that culture model. The variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics indicate
strongly and significantly impacts cross-national consumer less multicollinearity among the predictors for this model,
satisfaction. As predicted, national cultures that tend toward with the highest value again for per capita GDP (5.755).
secular-rational values (rather than traditional values) gen- Four of the six national-level predictor variables in the
erally experience and report lower customer satisfaction model are significant. The parameter estimates for the
(coefficient=−3.049, p<0.001). Also as predicted, socie- traditional vs. secular-rational, PPP-adjusted per capita
ties that tend toward self-expressive values over survival GDP, literacy rate, and trade freedom variables are all
values experience and report higher customer satisfaction significant, with the coefficients directionally unchanged
(coefficient=0.858, p<0.01). from the full model and similar in magnitude. The survival
We find support for H3 and H4 which predicted a
5
significant relationship between national socioeconomic Again, multicollinearity among the dummy variables—and particu-
larly for the Retail and Information sector dummies—should be noted.
characteristics and customer satisfaction. Both of the However, because we are less interested in the parameter estimates or
socioeconomic predictors, a nation’s per capita gross the significance of these dummies and more in their role as controls,
domestic product and its literacy rate, are significant and we leave our model unchanged.
210 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

Table 5 Sensitivity analysis

model (including only finance Unstandardized estimate Standard error t
and insurance sector industries)
Constant −51.362 25.781 −1.992
Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.739*** 0.764 −4.896
Survival vs. Self-expression 1.012 0.789 1.284
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.407*** 0.099 −4.107
Literacy rate (2007) 0.846*** 0.220 3.852
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.520** 0.151 3.437
Heritage business freedom (2007) 0.142 0.079 1.799
N=38 measured industries F-statistic 6.558***
(across all 19 countries) R2 0.559
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; Adjusted R2 0.474
*p<0.05

vs. self-expression and business freedom variables are not expect from an unstable model capitalizing on a particular
significant in this second model, although the smaller model specification or sample.
sample and corresponding larger standard errors appear to Our final set of statistical tests, the bootstrap tests
be more responsible for this outcome than changes in the presented in Tables 7 and 8, seek to study the relative
size of the parameter estimates. stability of our model to variations in sampling. While the
Table 6 shows results for a model with the six predictor three bootstrapping methods used for our full model in
variables across all 19 countries, but with the sample Table 7 reveal some inflation in the standard errors of the
truncated by sector to include only industries in the estimates, in some cases resulting in a “loss of significance”
Information sector (a sample of N=47 industries). This in terms of p-value and level of significance, none of these
model is statistically significant, with an F-value of 8.622 methods result in substantially different conclusions than
(p<0.001). The model R2 is 0.564, with an adjusted-R2 of those arrived at originally. Importantly, the same is true for
0.499, reasonably similar to the other two models. The the two sub-sample sensitivity analysis models with results
variance inflation factor (VIF) statistics indicate limited in Table 8, which utilize much smaller samples than the full
multicollinearity among the predictors, with the highest model. In other words, the parameter estimates in all of the
value for per capita GDP (4.399). For this model, three of models appear to be relatively robust.
the six predictors are significant. The parameter estimates
for the traditional vs. secular-rational, PPP-adjusted per
capita GDP, and literacy rate variables are all significant, Discussion
with the coefficients directionally unchanged from the
earlier models, and similar in magnitude. The remaining Our goal in this study was to understand the cultural,
three variables are insignificant predictors in this model. socioeconomic and political-economic determinants of
Nevertheless, neither the results in this model nor those cross-national variation in customer satisfaction. The find-
reported in Table 5 indicate the type of radical deviation in ings suggest that researchers working in this context must
parameter estimates (or other model statistics) one would take cultural, socioeconomic, political-economic, and in-

Table 6 Sensitivity analysis

model (including only Unstandardized estimate Standard error t
information sector industries)
Constant −15.283 26.366 −0.580
Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.376*** 0.672 −5.027
Survival vs. Self-expression 0.610 0.759 0.803
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.269** 0.086 −3.126
Literacy rate (2007) 0.835** 0.242 3.448
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.251 0.155 1.620
Heritage business freedom (2007) −0.088 0.089 −0.997
N=47 measured industries F-statistic 8.622***
(across all 19 nations) R2 0.564
***p<0.001; **p<0.01; Adjusted R2 0.499
*p<0.05
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 211

Table 7 Three bootstrap tests of the full linear model

Unstandardized 1. Sample 2. Random case resample 3. Stratified 4. Stratified

estimate bootstrap bootstrap bootstrap
(by NAICS sector) (by country)
SE SE SE SE

Constant −8.025 12.390 13.165 12.738 11.637

Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.049 0.306*** 0.324** 0.319** 0.297**
Survival vs. Self-expression 0.858 0.326** 0.378* 0.380* 0.384*
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.307 0.046*** 0.054** 0.054** 0.047**
Literacy rate (2007) 0.546 0.097*** 0.095** 0.092** 0.092**
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.343 0.076*** 0.108** 0.107** 0.103**
Heritage business freedom 0.107 0.044* 0.054* 0.052* 0.049*
(2007)
Utilities dummy −4.884 2.278* 1.834** 1.720** 1.835**
Transportation dummy −3.598 1.185** 1.374* 1.358* 1.324**
Information dummy −2.620 1.100* 1.142* 1.153* 1.036*
Accommodation dummy −0.928 1.272 1.193 1.245 1.204
Education dummy −0.812 1.395 1.296 1.252 1.173
Nondurable dummy 8.427 1.311*** 1.135** 1.148** 1.121**
Durable dummy 3.045 1.489* 1.435* 1.390* 1.497*
Public dummy −8.426 1.557*** 1.957** 1.852** 2.057**
Retail dummy −0.757 1.060 1.092 1.097 1.093
Finance dummy 0.154 1.134 1.170 1.163 1.129

N=272 measured industries (across all 19 countries)

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

dustry/sector factors into account when comparing satisfac- These findings vis-à-vis culture and satisfaction have
tion across nations. As in past studies, we find that culture significant implications for corporations operating in
matters when trying to understand cross-national variance multiple nations. In the first instance, marketing managers
in consumer attitudes, in this case regarding customer should recognize that any effort to benchmark and compare
satisfaction. Simply put, consumers in traditional societies satisfaction levels between traditional and secular-rational
tend to either experience or express far higher levels of societies, for example, is likely to be confounded by
satisfaction than secular-rational societies, while consumers culture. Moreover, these results suggest that efforts to
in self-expressive societies do the same. These results improve satisfaction may have a less noticeable effect (in
suggest that cultural factors must be accounted for when terms of the magnitude of changes) in some nations,
benchmarking or comparing satisfaction results across suggesting that efforts to establish “targets” for satisfaction
nations, as we suspected. improvement across nations may be difficult. Strategically,
Furthermore, these results may point to differential MNCs should also recognize these culturally-driven satis-
“thresholds of satisfiability” among consumers within faction thresholds when considering entry into new national
different cultures, suggesting that consumers from some markets. That is, MNCs are likely to find efforts to please
cultural groups may simply be harder to please (or at least consumers in both secular-rational and survival-oriented
less likely to express pleasure) than others. Finally, while nations more difficult than expected.
not a first-order goal of this research, our results suggest We also find that socioeconomic factors—in this
that the Inglehart and Baker conceptualization of culture, so instance, a nation’s per capita GDP and its literacy rate—
far rarely used in the marketing literature, may have value impact cross-national satisfaction. We find that consumers
and warrant use in future marketing research. Some of the in nations with higher average per capita GDP are more
advantages of this dataset (when compared to the Hofstede difficult to satisfy, as we hypothesized. While important,
Cultural Dimensions), including the frequency with which this result should be interpreted carefully. It would be
it is updated, the smaller number of variables (minimizing incorrect to infer from this result that economic policy-
problems of multicollinearity), and its availability across all makers should, for instance, seek a lower per capita GDP
nations, should appeal to researchers. for their nation, as this would create consumers who are
212 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

Table 8 Bootstrap tests of sensitivity models

Unstandardized estimate 1. Sample 2. Random case bootstrap 3. Stratified bootstrap (by country)
SE SE SE

Finance and insurance sector models

Constant −51.362 25.781 28.375 27.206
Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.739 0.764*** 0.902** 0.842**
Survival vs. Self-expression 1.012 0.789 1.316 1.284
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.407 0.099*** 0.131** 0.128**
Literacy rate (2007) 0.846 0.220*** 0.199** 0.170**
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.520 0.151** 0.296* 0.278*
Heritage business freedom (2007) 0.142 0.079 0.081 0.075
Information sector models
Constant −15.283 26.366 26.053 22.826
Traditional vs. Secular rational −3.376 0.672*** 0.716** 0.677**
Survival vs. Self-expression 0.610 0.759 0.882 0.767
Per capita GDP (PPP, 2007) −0.269 0.086** 0.103** 0.085**
Literacy rate (2007) 0.835 0.242** 0.266** 0.235**
Heritage trade freedom (2007) 0.251 0.155 0.248 0.208
Heritage business freedom (2007) −0.088 0.089 0.070 0.062

***p<0.001; **p<0.01; *p<0.05

actually more satisfied. While dynamic interpretations like Finally, we find that political-economic factors impact
this are always difficult in cross-sectional studies, this cross-national satisfaction, as we anticipated. Confirming
conclusion seems especially implausible. On the contrary, both classical economic theory and contemporary accepted
we interpret this finding to mean that consumers, as their wisdom, we find that both free trade and business freedom
wealth grows with the nation’s economy (both over long positively impact customer satisfaction. For policymakers,
periods of time), gradually become more demanding. In the implications of this finding are straightforward: greater
turn, corporations (multinational or domestic) should economic freedom should improve the satisfaction of
anticipate having a more difficult task satisfying consumers domestic consumers, boosting prospects for long-term
who are more demanding, hold higher expectations, and so economic growth. While MNCs are constrained in the first
forth. instance by economic freedom itself in determining which
Similarly, we find that consumers in nations with higher markets to enter, they should nevertheless recognize that
literacy rates are generally more satisfied. It is likely that the existing levels of economic freedom within a nation will
this result emanates from both the nature of the consumers likely condition the satisfaction of consumers within that
and the nature of the workforce within these societies, with market, and therefore impact their prospects for creating
literate, more informed consumers proving better consum- customer satisfaction.
ers, and a more literate workforce better able to satisfy As with all scientific research, there are limitations to our
consumers. For policymakers, the implications of this study that need to be explicitly noted, and these limitations
finding are clear: efforts to improve literacy within a nation point to directions for future research. Despite the fact that
will enhance customer satisfaction, and the economy along the sample used in this study is quite large when compared
with it. Likewise, MNCs looking to expand into new to other studies in this area, 19 nations still represent a
markets should consider the available domestic workforce, fairly small subset of the population of the world.
as this workforce will certainly impact their ability to offer Therefore, future research with a larger sample of nations
a satisfying consumer experience. It is also worthwhile to would be useful. Moreover, while we have selected a cohort
note here that the literacy rate variable was a relatively of predictors grounded in prior research and theory and
more important predictor for the Information sector (see more expansive than that employed in most of the existing
Table 6) than it was in the full model. This result makes literature, there remains a need to consider other relevant
sense and suggests that while literacy is vital to customer variables which may be salient in other settings.
satisfaction across all economic sectors, it is especially We suggest at least three opportunities for further
important in information sector industries and for econo- research. First, it will be useful to extend this work by
mies seeking to grow their information sectors. focusing on a particular product or service across countries
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 213

(such as mobile phones, healthcare, education) to derive Aksoy, L., Cooil, B., Groening, C., Keiningham, T. L., & Yalcin, A.
(2008). The long-term stock market valuation of customer
insights applicable to specific industries. Focusing on
satisfaction. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 105–122.
products or services that are IT-intensive or information- Anderson, E. W. (1994). Cross-category variation in customer
intensive may be particularly valuable because such satisfaction and retention. Marketing Letters, 5(1), 19–30.
products lend themselves to greater standardization and Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word-of-mouth.
Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 1–14.
may permit finer-grained analyses of cultural, socioeco-
Anderson, E. W., & Fornell, C. (1994). The customer satisfaction
nomic, and political-economic influences. index as a leading indicator. In T. A. Swartz & D. Iacobucci
Second, prior research suggests important differences in (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing and management.
customer satisfaction and customer loyalty when it comes Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Anderson, E. W., & Mittal, V. (2000). Strengthening the
to service provision by government vis-à-vis the private satisfaction-profit chain. Journal of Service Research, 3(2),
sector (e.g., Kankanhalli and Kohli 2009; Mithas et al. 107–120.
2006–07, 2010; Morgeson and Mithas 2009). There is a Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents and
need to investigate these differences across national consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Marketing
Science, 12(2), 125–143.
boundaries for generalizable insights. Finally, there is a
Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Lehmann, D. R. (1994). Customer
need to conduct cross-national studies for customer satis- satisfaction, market share, and profitability: findings from
faction at the firm level, incorporating the effect of other Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53–66.
relevant variables such as IT investments and information Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Rust, R. T. (1997). Customer
satisfaction, productivity, and profitability: differences between
management practices which have been shown to influence
goods and services. Marketing Science, 16(2), 129–145.
customer satisfaction and firm performance in single-nation Anderson, E. W., Fornell, C., & Mazvancheryl, S. K. (2004).
studies (Mithas et al. 2005, 2011; Mithas and Rust 2010). Customer satisfaction and shareholder value. Journal of Market-
In conclusion, this study provides compelling evidence ing, 68(4), 172–185.
Anderson, S., Pearo, L., & Widener, S. K. (2008). Drivers of service
of the importance of clearly identifying the cultural, satisfaction: linking customer satisfaction to the service concept
socioeconomic, political-economic, and sector/industry fac- and customer characteristics. Journal of Service Research, 10(4),
tors that impact cross-national variation in satisfaction. 365–381.
Furthermore, the results indicate that unless appropriately Bernhardt, K. L., Donthu, N., & Kennett, P. A. (2000). A longitudinal
analysis of satisfaction and profitability. Journal of Business
accounted for, corporate-wide standards of customer satis-
Research, 47(2), 161–171.
faction will place some country managers at a disadvantage Berryman, S. E. (1994). The role of literacy in the wealth of
simply because of the characteristics of their nations, not individuals and nations. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult
because of objective performance. The results also indicate Literacy, University of Pennsylvania.
Brady, M. K., & Robertson, C. J. (2001). Searching for a consensus on
that much of the variation in customer satisfaction data can
the antecedent role of service quality and satisfaction: an
be explained by incorporating readily available data on exploratory cross-national study. Journal of Business Research,
national culture, socio-economic factors, and economic 51(1), 53–60.
freedom. As a result, managers at MNCs should be better Bryant, B. E., & Cha, J. (1996). Crossing the threshold. Marketing
Research, 8(4), 20–28.
able to identify real differences in service performance
Bryant, B. E., Fornell, C., & Morgeson, F. V., III. (2008). American
across their operations. customer satisfaction index methodology report. Milwaukee:
American Society for Quality.
Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Professor Claes Chatterjee, S., & Hadi, A. S. (1988). Sensitivity analysis in linear
Fornell of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) for regression. New York: Wiley.
commenting on an earlier draft of this paper and for providing access Chernick, M. R. (2008). Bootstrap methods: A guide for practitioners
to the data that made the study possible. Several ACSI international and researchers. New York: Wiley.
partners provided access to data and invaluable insight into their Claycamp, H. J., & Massy, W. H. (1968). A theory of market
markets during our research, and we thank them for their support—Jan segmentation. Journal of Marketing Research, 5, 388–394.
Eklöf in Europe, Bulent Kilincarslan in Turkey, Juan Pablo Granada in Donthu, N., & Yoo, B. (1998). Cultural influences on service quality
Colombia, and Marcus Lee in Singapore. Finally, thanks also to Dr. expectations. Journal of Service Research, 1(2), 178–186.
Irina Selivanova of EPSI Rating for help with the EPSI dataset, and to Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1986). Bootstrap methods for standard
Robert Kalsow-Ramos of the University of Michigan for providing errors, confidence intervals, and other measures of statistical
research assistance. accuracy. Statistical Science, 1(1), 54–77.
Eklöf, J., & Selivanova, I. (2008). Human aspect in service quality:
EPSI benchmark studies. Total Quality Management & Business
References Excellence, 19(9/10).
Fornell, C. (1992). A national customer satisfaction barometer: the
Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56(1), 6–21.
Ackerman, D., & Tellis, G. (2001). Can culture affect prices? A cross- Fornell, C. (2007). The satisfied customer: Winners and losers in the
cultural study of shopping and retail prices. Journal of Retailing, battle for buyer preference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
77(1), 57–82. Fornell, C., & Robinson, W. T. (1986). Industrial organization and
Aeppel, T. (2007). Overseas profits provide shelter for U.S. firms. In consumer satisfaction/dissatisfaction. Journal of Consumer Re-
Wall Street Journal (Aug 9, 2007). Washington, DC. search, 9(4), 403–458.
214 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215

Fornell, C., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, E. W., Cha, J., & Bryant, B. E. USA vs. Japan. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics,
(1996). The American customer satisfaction index: nature, 21(3), 376–396.
purpose, and findings. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 7–18. Kumar, P. (2002). The impact of performance, cost, and competitive
Fornell, C., VanAmburg, D., Morgeson, F. V., III, Anderson, E. W., considerations on the relationship between satisfaction and
Bryant, B. E., & Johnson, M. D. (2005). The American customer repurchase intent in business markets. Journal of Service
satisfaction index at ten years. Ann Arbor: Stephen M. Ross Research, 5(1), 55–68.
School of Business. Lam, D. (2007). Cultural influence on proneness to brand loyalty.
Fornell, C., Mithas, S., Morgeson, F. V., III, & Krishan, M. S. (2006). Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 19(3), 7–21.
Customer satisfaction and stock prices: high returns, low risk. Liu, R. R., & McClure, P. (2001). Recognizing cross-cultural differ-
Journal of Marketing, 70(1), 1–14. ences in consumer complaint behavior and intentions: an
Fornell, C., Mithas, S., & Morgeson, F. V., III. (2009a). Commentary empirical examination. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18
—the economic and statistical significance of stock returns on (1), 54–72.
customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 28(5), 820–825. Loveman, G. W. (1998). Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and
Fornell, C., Mithas, S., & Morgeson, F. V., III. (2009b). The statistical financial performance: an empirical examination of the service
significance of portfolio returns. International Journal of profit chain in retail banking. Journal of Service Research, 1(1),
Research in Marketing, 26(2), 162–163. 18–31.
Furrer, O., Liu, B. S.-C., & Sudharshan, D. (2000). The relationship Lynn, M., Zinkhan, G. M., & Harris, J. (1993). Consumer tipping: a
between culture and service quality perceptions: basis for cross- cross-country study. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 478–
cultural market segmentation and resource allocation. Journal of 488.
Service Research, 2(4), 355–371. Malai, V., & Speece, M. (2005). Cultural impact on the relationship
Ghemawat, P. (2007). Redefining global strategy: Crossing borders in among perceived service quality, brand name value, and
a world where differences still matter. Boston: HBS Press. customer loyalty. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,
Gruca, T. S., & Rego, L. L. (2005). Customer satisfaction, cash flow, 17(4), 7–39.
and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 115–130. Mattila, A. S. (1999). The role of culture in the service evaluation
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1992). process. Journal of Service Research, 1(3), 250–261.
Multivariate data analysis. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Mithas, S., & Rust, R. T. (2010). Digital strategies, digital platforms
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: a research- and firm performance: theory and evidence. In Working Paper,
based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland.
Studies of Management & Organization, 13(1&2), 46–74. College Park, MD.
Hofstede, G. (1994). Management scientists are human. Management Mithas, S., Krishnan, M. S., & Fornell, C. (2005). Why do customer
Science, 40(1), 4–13. relationship management applications affect customer satisfac-
Hofstede, G., Bond, M. H., & Luk, C.-L. (1993). Individual tion? Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 201–209.
perceptions of organizational cultures: a methodological treatise Mithas, S., Lucas, H., & Kim, K. (2010). Can IT cure Baumol’s
on levels of analysis. Organizational Studies, 14(4), 483–503. ‘Disease’? How information technology influences productivity
Iacobucci, D., Grisaffe, D., Duhachek, A., & Marcati, A. (2003). of service activities. In A. Barua, K. Kannan, & Y. Tan (Eds.),
FAC-SEM: a methodology for modeling factorial structural Proceedings of the 15th Annual INFORMS Conference on
equations models, applied to cross-cultural and cross-industry Information Systems and Technology. Austin: Information Sys-
drivers of customer evaluations. Journal of Service Research, 6 tems Society.
(1), 3–23. Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., Krishnan, M. S., & Fornell, C. (2006-07).
Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, Designing websites for customer loyalty: a multilevel analysis.
economic and political change in 43 societies. Princeton: Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(3), 97–127.
Princeton University Press. Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How
Inglehart, R., & Baker, W. E. (2000). Modernization, cultural change, information management capability influences firm performance.
and the persistence of traditional values. American Sociological MIS Quarterly, 35(1).
Review, 65, 19–51. Mittal, V., & Kamakura, W. (2001). Satisfaction, repurchase intent,
Ittner, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1998). Are non-financial measures leading and repurchase behavior: investigating the moderating effect of
indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer customer characteristics. Journal of Marketing Research, 38,
satisfaction. Journal of Accounting Research, 36(Supplement), 131–142.
1–35. Mittal, V., Ross, W. T., Jr., & Baldasare, P. M. (1998). The asymmetric
Jo, M.-S., & Sarigollu, E. (2007). Cross-cultural differences of price- impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on
perceived quality relationships. Journal of International Con- overall satisfaction and repurchase intentions. Journal of Mar-
sumer Marketing, 19(4), 59–74. keting, 62(1), 33–47.
Johnson, M. D., & Fornell, C. (1991). A framework for comparing Mittal, V., Kumar, P., & Tsiros, M. (1999). Attribute-level perfor-
customer satisfaction across individuals and product categories. mance, satisfaction, and behavioral intentions over time: a
Journal of Economic Psychology, 12(2), 267–286. consumption-system approach. Journal of Marketing, 63(2),
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A., & Gustafsson, A. (2002). Comparing 88–101.
customer satisfaction across industries and countries. Journal of Morgeson, F. V., III, & Mithas, S. (2009). Does E-government
Economic Psychology, 23(6), 749–769. measure up to E-business? Comparing end-user perceptions of U.
Kankanhalli, A., & Kohli, R. (2009). Does public or private sector S. Federal Government and E-business websites. Public Admin-
matter? An agenda for IS research in e-Government. PACIS 2009 istration Review, 69(4), 740–752.
Proceedings, Hyderabad. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQ-
Keiningham, T. L., Goddard, M. K. M., Vavra, T. G., & Iaci, A. J. UAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions
(1999). Customer delight and the bottom-line. Marketing of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40.
Management, 8(3), 57–63. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Refinement
Khan, M. S., Naumann, E., Bateman, R., & Haverila, M. (2009). and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing,
Cross-cultural comparison of customer satisfaction research: 67(4), 420–450.
J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2011) 39:198–215 215

Reimann, M., Lunemann, U. F., & Chase, R. B. (2008). Uncertainty Thompson, E. R. (2004). National competitiveness: a question of cost
avoidance as a moderator of the relationship between perceived conditions or institutional circumstances? British Journal of
service quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Service Management, 15, 197–218.
Research, 11(1), 63–73. Tsikriktsis, N. (2002). Does culture influence web site quality
Rust, R. T., & Zahorik, A. J. (1993). Customer satisfaction, customer expectations. Journal of Service Research, 5(2), 101–112.
retention, and market share. Journal of Retailing, 69(2), 193–215. Tuli, K., & Bharadwaj, S. (2009). Customer satisfaction and stock
Sivakumar, K., & Nakata, C. (2001). The stampede toward Hofstede’s returns risk. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 184–197.
framework: avoiding the sample design pit in cross-cultural research. Ueltschy, L. C., & Krampf, R. F. (2001). Cultural sensitivity to
Journal of International Business Research, 32(3), 555–574. satisfaction and service quality measures. Journal of Marketing
Smith, A. M., & Reynolds, N. L. (2001). Measuring cross-cultural Theory and Practice 14–31.
service quality: a framework for assessment. International Usnier, J.-C. (1996). Marketing across cultures (2nd ed.). London:
Marketing Review, 19(5), 450–481. Prentice Hall.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Power and sample size in multilevel Vigna, P., & Shipman, J. (2010). Domestic sales lag. In Wall Street
modeling. In B. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Journal (20 April 2010). Washington, D.C.
statistics in behavioral science. New York: Wiley. West, B., Welch, K. B., & Gałecki, A. T. (2007). Linear mixed
Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton:
measurement invariance in cross–national consumer research. Chapman & Hall.
Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90. Zeithaml, V., Bolton, R., Deighton, J., Keiningham, T. L., Lemon, K.,
Straughan, R. D., & Albers-Miller, N. D. (2001). An international & Petersen, A. (2006). Forward-looking customer focus: can
investigation of cultural and demographic effects on domestic firms have adaptive foresight? Journal of Service Research, 9(2),
retail loyalty. International Marketing Review, 18(5), 521–541. 168–183.